Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Cyprus (British Property)

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has now made to the Governments of Cyprus and Turkey about compensation for British nationals who lost property and personal possessions in the Cyprus disturbances of 1974.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I told my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) on 19th December—[Vol. 883, c. 575–6]—that we have been considering an approach to the Governments of Turkey and Cyprus on this problem. After careful assessment of the responsibility for the various categories of loss and damage reported, my right hon. Friend has authorised Her Majesty's Am-

bassador in Ankara to make representations to the Turkish Government. An approach to the Government of Cyprus is still under consideration.

Mr. Brotherton: Is the Minister satisfied that the Government are doing all they can to help these people, most of whom are not rich and many of whom are now destitute?

Mr. Hattersley: I fear that I must accept the definition given by the hon. Gentleman of the condition of some of these people, but I hope he will accept my assurance that the Government are doing all they can, and are doing it repeatedly, to establish their claims and the responsibilities of the Government in question. This is a matter of some difficulty, although I promise that we shall continue to pursue it.

Mr. Graham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of Cypriots also lost property and possessions in 1974? Does he agree that the recent action of the Government in acquiescing in the transfer of 10,000 Turkish Cypriot refugees to Turkey who were then sent to the north of Cyprus is regarded as a betrayal by many of the Greek community in Greece and Cyprus and also those in this country, many of whom are my constituents? Does he not agree that it is time for the Government's policy to be made absolutely clear to avoid the charge of betrayal and of a complete reversal of policy?

Mr. Hattersley: I agree that there are many thousands of Greek Cypriots living in desperate conditions for whom something should be done—essentially by the Government of Turkey and the military authority in the north of the island of Cyprus. As for the Turkish refugees who were lately in the western sovereign base, we always knew that if we were to allow them to leave that base by air charges of duplicity would be made against us. We always knew that it would produce difficulties and embarrassments for Her Majesty's Government, but we took the view in January that their conditions, were they to remain there under canvas for the winter, would become so desperate that, out of compassion, it was our duty to allow them to leave by air. I am sure we were right to do so.

Mr. Rippon: One accepts that the Government's judgment in that regard may be correct, but can the Minister say what representations were made to the Turkish Government and what assurances were sought from them in consideration of the concession we made?

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend rightly refused to bargain over this matter, saying that the lives and the health of several thousand Turkish Cypriots were not suitable subjects for making a deal with the Government of Turkey or anyone else. At the same time, however, he told the Turkish Government how strongly he and, he believed, this House would feel about their obligations to do something on behalf of the Greek Cypriot refugees. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that 1,000 Greek Cypriot refugees have already returned to their homes, but we continue to press as strongly as we can for the sort of humanity which we have shown to be shown by other nations.

Mr. Atkinson: May I give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I shall wish to raise a point of order on Question No. 35 at the end of Question Time, about the way in which the Foreign Office has avoided making a statement about this situation?
Further to the questions already answered, may I ask what attitude the Foreign Secretary will take when or if he discusses this matter with Dr. Kissinger tomorrow? What will be the Government's position? Why have the Government now decided on non-intervention in the Clerides-Denktash talks, and what is the position of this Government as guarantor of the original treaty? I understand that the discussions next week will now be about the geographical allocation of territories in Cyprus, and many people are hoping that this Government will do something to avoid de facto recognition of the partition line, which is on the agenda for the talks.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry if my hon. Friend thinks that our answers have been less than frank. With great respect, I doubt whether that is how they will seem when read in Hansard tomorrow.
As far as the Clerides-Denktash talks are concerned, it has always been the policy of Her Majesty's Government that these talks are the talks which are going

on and which it is possible to see continued and, therefore, are the best prospects for making progress in the island. It is not known—but it ought to be—that the beginnings of these talks came about when the Secretary-General of the United Nations and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State had a conversation in August about how progress might be made towards a settlement in the island. Because of the very considerable progress that has been made on some issues and the willingness to expand the talks into political matters, Her Majesty's Government continue to believe that they are a prospect for progress. If my hon. Friend has any other material or practical suggestions about how progress should be made, I shall be happy to hear about them.

Mr. Atkinson: What about Kissinger?

Middle East Arms Supplies

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the United States of America, the USSR and France for a joint embargo with Great Britain on arms and weapons spare parts to both Arab and Israeli contestants in the Middle East; and if the Government will give the lead by prohibiting such supplies from Great Britain forthwith.

Mr. Corbett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will propose at the appropriate international organisations a total ban on all arms supplies to the Middle East by Great Britain, France, the USSR and the United States of America.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): An effective agreement on some measure of arms limitation in the Middle East is likely to be possible only with the support of the parties to the dispute and in the context of a general settlement.

Mr. Allaun: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Middle East war could escalate into the third world war, which none of the four Governments mentioned wants? If agreement is difficult, as he suggests, why should not Britain give the initiative by getting out of this dirty business herself instead of selling arms to both sides? Lastly, is not talking of a balance


in supplying arms, as some people do, a poor excuse, because it is really accelerating the arms race in that part of the world?

Mr. Ennals: First, I agree with my hon. Friend that there are great dangers in the Middle East. That is why I think it is the responsibility of all of us to put as much pressure as we can upon the parties concerned. Most of us will welcome the fact that Dr. Kissinger is proposing to pay a further visit to the Middle East. I think we would wish him well in that. As to whether Her Majesty's Government by taking unilateral action would affect the situation, I very much doubt that.
The main decision concerning arms is that taken by the countries themselves. They decide for themselves whether they want arms, in the same way as we decide whether to produce them. There is little doubt that if the British Government were to decide to impose a unilateral embargo, the orders would be taken up by other countries. I do not think that anything would be achieved.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the assumption made in the Question correct—that only the countries named are supplying arms to the area?

Mr. Ennals: I cannot answer for my hon. Friend who put down the Question.

Mr. Mikardo: While I agree with the purport of the questions of my hon. Friends, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind when considering this matter that an embargo limited, in the terms of the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), to
both Arab and Israeli contestants in the Middle East
would not be good enough, because there are other people who, as intermediaries, are willing to pass on arms to some of the contestants?

Mr. Ennals: I think that my hon. Friend is right.

Dr. M. S. Miller: May I also ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that if he is considering an embargo of this kind he should also be considering the complete division of the British Aircraft Corporation which has been set up for the supplying of sophisticated weapons to Saudi

Arabia, which I believe is situated in the Middle East?

Mr. Ennals: That is another question.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that in 1973 Her Majesty's Government made a unilateral declaration and decided, during the October war of that year, to refuse to supply arms to either side? Therefore, by doing as the Question suggests we would not be embarking upon any new policy but would be following a sensible decision made in 1973.

Mr. Ennals: I do not think I can agree. I thought that the decision taken at that time was deplorable. I do not think many of my hon. Friends thought that the decision of the previous Government to deny arms to one country when it needed them was a decision that was promoting peace or anything else.

Rhodesia

Mr. Brittan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the progress made in securing a constitutional settlement in Rhodesia.

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on moves by Her Majesty's Government towards a settlement in Rhodesia.

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend has sent messages to Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa. Mr. Smith's reply says that a proposed visit to Salisbury by British officials would not be helpful at this stage. The ANC has not yet replied. My right hon. Friend remains in consultation with the African leaders principally concerned.

Mr. Brittan: While there will be widespread disappointment that the Foreign Secretary's offer to send an official to Salisbury has been turned down, may I ask the Minister whether he accepts that the somewhat ill-tempered and ham-fisted remark of the Foreign Secretary about comparing Rhodesian leaders to men stuck in an ice floe may well have contributed to this decision? What steps will the British Government now take to keep the tempo of negotiations going? Will the Government at one and the


same time urge the African leaders to bring an effective end to terrorism and urge Mr. Smith to recommend the release of detainees?

Mr. Ennals: Perhaps I should deal first with the serious part of that question. I think it is a disappointment. I think it is only a temporary setback. We cannot assume that there will not be an opportunity for exchanges with Mr. Smith. He has certainly not closed the door. I also agree that it is of great importance that the agreement reached in Lusaka should in every respect be carried through by all the parties concerned. I have no doubt that the African presidents are using their influence. I hope that Mr. Vorster will continue to use his influence. I think we would want to wish well to the talks which have begun between Mr. Smith's representatives and the African National Council. When my right hon. Friend made his statement in the House, he said that a constitutional conference could result only from these talks in Rhodesia. We would want to wish them well.
As for the non-serious part of the supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman is fooling himself. My right hon. Friend said that Rhodesia was in a serious situation and facing serious problems. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that he must be alone in doing so.

Mr. James Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend accept two facts of life, as I have done for some years? The first is that since 1922, when Southern Rhodesia, as she then was, opted not to become the sixth State of the Union, Her Majesty's Government have had little if any constitutional status in Salisbury. Secondly, nowhere in Africa, outside the former colonies such as Kenya, has any white settler population voluntarily handed over power to the black masses. In the light of those two facts of history, does not my right hon. Friend think that we ought to leave it to Kenneth Kaunda and the other black leaders, because sooner or later there will be conflict in the territory such as that in Angola and Mozambique?

Mr. Ennals: I think my hon. Friend recognises—if he does not, perhaps I can mention it—that Presidents Kaunda, Nyerere and Seretse Khama have been extremely anxious and have made it clear

to my right hon. Friend that he should play as active a part as he can. The question is, how active a part? Clearly, although we have legal constitutional responsibility for what is still constitutionally a British dependent territory, our influence is not such that we can directly intervene. I think it is quite right, therefore, that my right hon. Friend should indicate his willingness to convene a conference at such time as the situation leads one to believe that it can succeed.

Mr. Lane: Is it not clear that a major factor in opening up even the possibility of a settlement has been the determination of the British Government, of both parties, to keep the illegal régime isolated in the international community? Have the Government considered what further negotiations may be useful in this very fluid situation? Will they keep in mind that a settlement must include reliable safeguards not only for the African majority but also for the European minority in Rhodesia?

Mr. Ennals: Concerning the last part of the question, I think my right hon. Friend told the House on 14th January that if he were present at a constitutional conference he would certainly do his best to ensure that there were guarantees for the minority. That is one of the basic Six Principles.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the decision, of both sides of the House—though many Opposition Members did not agree—to sustain sanctions and not to recognise the Smith régime, was a perfectly proper measure and was paving the way for this situation. As for further initiatives, my right hon. Friend is in close contact with the Africa presidents and with Mr. Vorster. We await also to see not only the reply from the ANC but such later replies as we hope to receive from Mr. Smith.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all past records show that there is absolutely no possibility of constructive dealings with Smith and that until he is removed there is no possible way forward?

Mr. Ennals: I cannot accept that conclusion. It is too early to say what the outcome of the present negotiations will be. We must accept that representatives


of the Smith régime accepted certain principles in Lusaka. They, together with others, declared their intention to carry them through, and it is our wish to see that agreement fully respected by all concerned.

Mr. Amery: The Minister of State will remember that the Foreign Secretary wisely overcame his initial reluctance to meet Mr. Vorster. Would the Foreign Secretary be prepared in appropriate circumstances to meet Mr. Smith?

Mr. Ennals: It depends on what those appropriate circumstances are, but there would have to be a great deal of change before that became possible.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take into account, in considering any settlement of the Rhodesia question, the need to restore the rights and homeland which have been illegally taken away from the Tangwena tribe.

Mr. Ennals: I hope that any settlement of the Rhodesia question will lead to a satisfactory resolution of many problems including those of the Tangwena people.

Mr. Mikardo: I thank my right hon. Friend warmly for that reply, even though it does not contain any commitment. I ask him to bear in mind when these matters are being considered that the Tangwena were brutally evicted from their ancestral homeland in 1968; that the Supreme Court in Rhodesia, even under UDI, declared that eviction to be unconstitutional and was overruled only by Mr. Dupont, who usurped the powers of the Governor; and that the land is occupied by a ranching company most of whose proprietors are English or Irish. Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that when the constitutional talks start this point, perhaps small in relation to some others but large in relation to justice, is not overlooked?

Mr. Ennals: I have deep sympathy with the point of view presented by my hon. Friend and with the conditions, the problems and the history of the Tangwena people. I agree that it is essential that the problem should be resolved. I know that part of the problem is that parents have been separated from their

children. I have heard that parents are now free to take their children away from their present position, which is a welcome advance. Certainly this is one problem that must be solved as part of the settlement in Rhodesia that we hope to achieve.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would not British influence in all these important matters be strengthened if Her Majesty's Government had a representative in this territory for which the Government claim responsibility? Despite the present difficulties with Mr. Smith will the Government pursue that matter?

Mr. Ennals: Maybe the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I answered an earlier Question—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes, I was.

Mr. Ennals: —when I said that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had suggested to Mr. Smith that there should be a visit from officials to discuss the situation and the state of the negotiations, and that Mr. Smith said that the time was not opportune. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting a way in which there should be diplomatic recognition by the back door, the answer is positively "No".

Persian Gulf

Mr. Stanley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will pay an official visit to the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit the Gulf at present. I am proposing to visit the Arab States of the Gulf myself early next month.

Mr. Stanley: In view of the political and economic importance of the Gulf area to this country, and in view also of the deep dismay engendered in the Gulf by the remarks attributed to Dr. Kissinger earlier this month that the United States did not wholly exclude the possibility of circumstances in which it might intervene militarily in the area, will the Minister reconsider the possibility of a visit by the Foreign Secretary to the Gulf States. If he went he could carry with him the view of our Government that we have nothing but good intentions towards that part of the world.

Mr. Ennals: I had better go first myself before I recommend my right hon. Friend to follow me the week after. I can assure the hon. Member that I shall be having wide-ranging talks in Kuwait, Bahrein, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. My visit will deal with political issues, including those referred to by the hon. Member, and economc questions. In so far as there are points which can be elaborated, I am certain that that will be done during this visit. I shall find it of great advantage to exchange views with countries which have had traditional friendly relations with us.

Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend make clear to the Sultan of Oman that there is a considerable body of opinion in Britain which regards the war in Oman as being totally unjustified and which believes that British support in that war should be completely withdrawn?

Mr. Ennals: I am not quite certain how widespread that support is. I have no doubt that the Sultan has seen the Questions which have been put by my hon. Friend, but I think that most people in this country who know much about what is going on in Oman recognise the great advances which are being made in social and economic development in the interests of the people under the present Sultan, and I think that we should give them every encouragement.

Mr. Walters: May I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) in what he said and go a little further?
May I ask whether, in addition to making visits, the Foreign Secretary will extend invitations to leaders in the Gulf and other areas which are so immensely important to us to visit this country?

Mr. Ennals: Most of the leaders of the five countries which I shall be visiting in the Gulf have paid visits to this country during the past 12 months and have had valuable talks during their stay here.

Turkey (Computer Sale)

Mr. Dodsworth: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the sending out of a British team of computer specialists in support of the supply of a United States manufactured

computer to the Turkish Government when this may be utilised to aid the disposition of Turkish troops in Cyprus.

Mr. Hattersley: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade told the House on 13th January, Her Majesty's Government were not involved in the sale of an American computer to Turkey, nor have we been involved in the despatch of computer specialists to Turkey or to the Turkish-held part of Cyprus.

Mr. Dodsworth: I am grateful to the Minister for clarification of the facts, but does he agree that the reports which are of such a nature as to show an apparent partiality towards the Turkish Government support the view expressed earlier in the House today that there is a feeling of betrayal of the people of Cyprus, and of the Greek Cypriots in particular? Does he accept that we need early action on behalf of the Greek Cypriots rather than fine words?

Mr. Hattersley: On the need for early action, I have expressed the view of the Government and I gladly reiterate it. On the matter of reports which imply partiality, since the reports about a computer were entirely false and were described as such six weeks ago it is unnecessary for me to deny them any further, and it is not helpful for hon. Members to raise the question.

Mr. Atkinson: Is not United Nations Resolution No. 353 the most significant resolution yet to be tabled about the Cypriot struggle? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Foreign Secretary, who is to meet Mr. Ivor Richard tomorrow to discuss initiatives to be taken by the United Nations in furtherance of the resolution, will meet Dr. Kissinger to discuss this matter? Does not my right hon. Friend believe in open government and, therefore, in saying so?

Mr. Hattersley: I agree with all the facts my hon. Friend has described. The Government have obligations as a member of the United Nations to the resolutions of that body. We have obligations as a member of the Commonwealth to a Commonwealth country. We have obligations as guarantor of the Cyprus constitution to Cyprus itself. My right hon. Friend will do his best to observe those obligations. Consultations will take


place in New York and eventually in Washington which will provide an opportunity to consider what should be our attitude in the United Nations and the co-operation we might receive from the United States. My right hon. Friend will explain to Dr. Kissinger what our policies on these matters are. I think he will expect, and I think his expectations will be fulfilled, that the Secretary of State will go on co-operating with us in the helpful way in which he has done so since the Cyprus crisis began.

Iraqui Kurdistan (Refugees)

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make funds available for humanitarian aid to refugees from the war in Iraqui Kurdistan.

Mr. Ennals: No, Sir. British official assistance is given only in respect of a request from a United Nations agency or an overseas Government, and no such request has been made in this case.

Mr. Sproat: Does the Minister accept that many people will regard the total inactivity of the British Government in this area as deeply to be regretted, particularly in the light of claims that there are now up to half a million refugees and that 10 children are dying of malnutrition and disease every day in parts of Kurdistan? In these circumstances, will the Minister of State bring pressure to bear on the Turkish authorities to open their frontiers for humanitarian aid? Will he invite the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to investigate at least the plight of hundreds of thousands of homeless and suffering people?

Mr. Ennals: All hon. Members would regret a situation in which there was human suffering. Certainly my figures show that there are upwards of 120,000 Kurdish refugees who have crossed the border into Iran. As for representations to the Turkish Government, it must first be recognised that we have no status in this situation. It is also very doubtful whether if we made representations they would bring the required result. As for the border, my information is that it is not officially closed, but I do not have further details on that.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the Minister of State stop pontificating about our

status? Will he recognise that this is a brutal genocidal war, that we have a historical responsibility as the country which established Iraq and that we have a humanitarian duty to aid the refugees and to protest insistently at what is being done?

Mr. Ennals: However strongly the hon. Member may feel about the situation, he must recognise that this is an internal matter. I cannot accept that the Government have a responsibility in this respect other than a general humanitarian concern, which we would show. We have not been approached by the United Nations or any other member State to give assistance.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is it not incredible that on a humanitarian issue such as this involving up to half a million refugees the Government are not prepared to make a diplomatic move? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British voluntary agencies, including War on Want, have made an on-the-spot investigation and are appalled at the extent of the human suffering? Is it a fact that the Government are making arms available to Iraq? If that is so, will the Government reconsider the position and try to induce a change in a situation which has appalled all those who have had the opportunity of witnessing what has happened?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman refers to 500,000 refugees. As far as I know, there are 120,000 refugees. [Interruption.] I have no figures of those who are in Turkey.

Sir Bernard Braine: Find out.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend said that the frontiers were closed. I was asked whether I would bring pressure to bear to see that they were opened. The refugees in Iran are being looked after by the Iranian Red Lion and Sun Society and, as far as I know, are being well looked after. The hon. Gentleman is coming to discuss the matter with me in a few days' time, when I shall be happy to consider further any points he wants to put to me.

South Vietnam (Military Aid)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise in the United Nations Security Council, as a threat to


world peace, the recent provision of military aid by the United States of America to the Republic of South Vietnam.

Mr. Ennals: No, Sir. The replacement of military equipment is permissible under Article 7 of the Parish Agreement.

Mr. Cryer: I am concerned about arms supplies to Vietnam from any quarter. Does my right hon. Friend accept that recent escalations of arms supplies from the United States to Vietnam are an indication that President Ford is seeking to step up the warlike activity there? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the Labour movement would like to see the Labour Government support the Democratic majority in Congress in seeking to curb the warlike aims of President Ford in Vietnam? Can he convey those sentiments to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Washington as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Ennals: I cannot accept all the points made by my hon. Friend. I think that not only the Labour movement but all thinking and caring people in this country will be desperately concerned about the increased level of violence and warfare in Vietnam. I do not think that the majority of the British public would want to start apportioning blame as between one party and another, and I do not want to add my apportionment of blame. There is a tragic situation in Vietnam. The most important thing is that the political talks between the Vietnamese people provided for in the Paris Agreements should be resumed. We have discussed these matters with representatives of both the North and South Vietnamese Governments, who are well aware of our concern.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a far greater threat to world peace is posed by the intolerable invasion of South Vietnam by an army of upwards of 200,000 men, fully equipped and making no disguise of the fact that they appear as a hostile force upon the territory of an independent country?

Mr. Ennals: I have already said that I and the Government deeply regret the increase in fighting and all the consequences in terms of loss of human rights, liberty and lives. The main thing, how-

ever, is that it is clear that the Paris Agreements are not being properly fulfilled and that they should be fulfilled by all the parties concerned.

Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nearly 2 million refugees have gone into South Vietnam as a result of the armed incursions and violations of Articles 3(c) and 10 of the Paris Agreement by the North? Are the Foreign Office and the Overseas Development Department taking steps to succour those refugees?

Mr. Ennals: The Government are contributing £1 million towards the UNICEF programme in Indo-China, which goes to North Vietnam, South Vietnam and other parts of Indo-China. We have also contributed £100,000 to the International Red Cross relief programme.

Mr. Churchill: In view of the clear breach of the Paris Agreements in that there is a substantial invasion force from North Vietnam in the territory of the Republic of South Vietnam, may I ask whether the Government are unable to establish the facts and to make representations to the guarantors of the Paris Agreements that they should be upheld?

Mr. Ennals: I said in answer to a previous supplementary question that we have been in touch with both the North Vietnamese and the South Vietnamese Governments expressing our concern at the present situation. I think it is true that many parts of the Paris Agreements have not been fulfilled. We are deeply concerned about that and we have made known our concern.
In welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new position, may I say that it is encouraging to see the weight in numbers of spokesmen on the Opposition Front Bench this afternoon. I cannot say the same in other respects.

Indian Ocean

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the issue of the demilitarisation of the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking


in response to the United Nations resolution calling for a nuclear-free zone to be established in the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Ennals: Although we did not support this resolution, we and the United States Government have agreed to consult about possible arms limitation measures in the Indian Ocean. We have also expressed our support for the Australian Prime Minster's proposal for consultations between the United States and Soviet Governments on the possibility of mutual restrictions in the area.

Mr. Newens: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that the CENTO naval exercise in November was the largest maritime exercise in history and that the defence review decision on Diego Garcia indicates that the Government support a policy of deliberate militarisation of the Indian Ocean? Is it not time we changed direction?

Mr. Ennals: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's interpretations. I have never seen CENTO as a threatening, challenging organisation, and I cannot accept the suggestion that a CENTO exercise presents any threat or challenge to anyone. As for Diego Garcia, I do not see anything that is in conflict with our wish to see an extension of peace in the Indian Ocean. I see no contradiction between that and the decision to grant to the United States a limited expansion of services in Diego Garcia.

Mr. Amery: Will the Minister point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) that the recent naval exercises in the Indian Ocean are very small compared with those undertaken by the Soviet submarine and surface fleets and that the Soviet establishment in Somalia antedates considerably the expansion of the Diego Garcia facilities?

Mr. Ennals: It is true that there has been an increase in the naval presence in the area.

Mr. Cook: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Diego Garcia expansion is so limited when the American Government are budgeting £40 million for its expansion? Is he aware of the evidence given to the Senate Armed Services Committee that after expansion Diego Garcia will have the capability for F111 aircraft

which have a nuclear capability? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the almost unanimous opposition to expansion from all the littoral States around the Indian Ocean? Why has he not listened to that opposition, and what reply has he given to the recent protest from the Indian Government over this matter?

Mr. Ennals: I shall deal first with the services provided on Diego Garcia. I referred to a modest improvement of the facilities. The improvement is to enable Diego Garcia to have ships and aircraft. It will include a lengthening of the runway, an improvement of the ship support facilities and an enlargement of the airfield parking area. This is not in any way to provide base facilities for the United States. The cost of the expansion is expected to be about £35 million. Nevertheless, in current terms I do not believe that this modest expansion presents a threat to anyone.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Renegotiation

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about his negotiations on continued British membership of the EEC.

Mr. Hattersley: We are continuing to make progress. We shall have an intensive period of negotiations in the next two months but I hope that we shall be able to conclude renegotiation by Easter.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister say which he thinks is the most stubborn of the outstanding matters? Is it his aim that they should be gathered together and dealt with at the Dublin Heads of Government Meeting?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not think it is possible or wise in this situation to evaluate the various items of renegotiation and to say that some present greater difficulties than others. If it is necessary to use the Dublin Heads of Government meeting to give extra impetus to our renegotiation, the meeting will be used for that purpose. My right hon. Friend's hope is that the following meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers in February and


March will see through the renegotiation on their own initiative.

Mr. Jay: What concessions to the British case have so far been agreed in the first 10 months of the negotiations?

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend is inviting me to go through the area of stubborn problems in rather the reverse way. I accept part of that invitation. He will recall that at the Paris Heads of Government meeting there was agreement that our case for an adjustment to the budget contribution was understandable and acceptable. It was, indeed, accepted. He will recall the enormous progress that was made regarding the relationship between the EEC and the developing world. I shall not weary him with every item of success, but there are others.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is clear that supplementary questions on this Question will take up the whole of the 20 minutes allotted to EEC Questions. I propose to go on to the next Question. Mr. Dykes.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what outstanding policy areas remain to be discussed with the other member countries in the context of Her Majesty's Government's renegotiations of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Hattersley: We have still to reach agreement on a number of important issues, including the details of the correcting mechanism for the budget, trade with countries outside the Community, particularly the Commonwealth, a new understanding on the Community rules for national regional aids, relations with developing countries and a number of matters relating to the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the prefix "re" to the word "negotiations" was inserted by the printers and not by myself? I am sure we can agree on their ruthless impartiality continuing. In the context of the list which the right hon. Gentleman has just read out, will be guarantee and reaffirm that no other additional items will be entered into the list of potential subjects to be negotiated?

Mr. Hattersley: I must confess that I do not understand the semantic point that the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his question. I can give him an absolute assurance that my right hon. Friend said in April that our list was complete and total and that no additions can be made to it now.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is already concern in this country about the activities of that European civil servant Sir Christopher Soames, bearing in mind that his first loyalty now is to the Common Market? Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is the additional complication that presumably Sir Christopher Soames is using the resources of the Common Market, let alone those of the Conservative Party? As the Labour Party and this Labour Government gave a pledge that the people would be consulted on this matter, is it not essential to ensure that the referendum is held in a fair manner?

Mr. Hattersley: The Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, have expressed their determination to ensure that the referendum is held fairly and impartially. That is a matter on which none of us disagrees. On the rôle of Sir Christopher Soames, I recognise that there is disagreement. Sir Christopher is a British citizen who will be entitled to vote in the referendum. In that capacity he is entitled to take part in the campaign.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects to complete renegotiation of the Treaty of Accession to the EEC.

Mr. Hattersley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on 14th January.—[Vol. 884, c. 184.]

Mr. Ridley: Is it not a fact that the Government have not renegotiated any of the terms of the Treaty of Accession? Will he therefore pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) who negotiated it to the complete satisfaction of the Labour Party? Does he agree that the concept of


renegotiation has been a dodge to help the Labour Party to stay together in a period of time which is soon running out?

Mr. Hattersley: I noticed the hon. Gentleman's reference to the treaty in the Question and I put it down to an error of drafting. He will recall that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear on 1st April that it was not our wish, if it could be avoided, to negotiate changes in the treaty. It is our wish to make substantial and fundamental alterations in the terms in which the treaty is applied. That we are doing with great seriousness and with some success.

Mr. Spearing: I revert to renegotiation. Does my right hon. Friend see some anomaly in the fact that while this Government and the country are still concerned with renegotiation one of the Commissioners, with whom in theory we are renegotiating, is making his views known? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Questions which I have tabled concerning the terms of employment of the Commissioners have been ruled out of order? Will he tell the House the exact terms of reference, and where they may be found, concerning the terms of appointment and employment of the Commissioners of the European Community?

Mr. Hattersley: All the Commissioners are employees, if that is the appropriate word, and are responsible to the Community. Questions about their ability to take time off to take part in the referendum campaign, if hon. Members think such questions are appropriate, which I do not, ought to be addressed to their employers. I base my view that such questions are not altogether appropriate on the fact that so many of us are allowed time off by our benevolent employers to take part in local authority work, for example, and other activities. But on the question of Sir Christopher's participation in this campaign I must reiterate that he is a British citizen and a free man, and I have no wish to curtail his rights in either of these capacities

Mr. Marten: First, may I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being appointed to the Privy Council? In a previous anwer he said that there would be no additions to the terms of renegotiation. Can he also give an assurance

that there will be no subtraction from the renegotiation terms as set out precisely in the Labour Party manifesto?

Mr. Hattersley: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance without pause or qualification. He has attended virtually all our debates and must have heard almost all the questions and answers on the subject, so no doubt he will agree that no item in either the February or the October Labour manifestos has been neglected.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even the pro-Europeans on this side of the House are concerned about the lack of democratic control of the existing institutions? Does he not agree that the only way to solve that problem is to have a democratically-elected European Parliament?

Mr. Hattersley: I said earlier that I understand the democratic arguments in favour of democratically-elected membership of the European Parliament, but my hon. Friend will agree on reflection that were we during the next three months, to mount proposals for the setting up of such an electoral system, the seriousness of our renegotiations would be questioned, and since they are serious I do not believe that we want these questions to be raised.

European Parliament (Elections)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government have yet reacted to the EEC proposal to hold direct elections to the European Parliament by 1978.

Mr. Hattersley: The Government's position remains as stated in the communiqué issued by Heads of Government after their 9th-10th December meeting, Cmnd 5830. We shall not take up a position on this proposal before the process of renegotiation has been completed and the results submitted to the British people.

Mr. Steel: Will the Minister reflect that it is rather extraordinary that the Government are not taking a position on the question of direct elections before this spurious referendum is held? Surely the British people are entitled to know


whether the Europe to which they are being asked to be committed is moving in a democratic direction.

Mr. Hattersley: I cannot imagine how the hon. Gentleman comes to regard the referendum as spurious. I believe that the referendum will be a matter of seriousness and that it should be taken in that way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do so when the time comes. As for a decision on the elections to the Parliament, it would be ridiculous if the Government were to make a major shift in their policy before the outcome of the referendum was known. Were we to establish permanent membership, that would be the proper time to examine the matter. Until that process is concluded, I do not think that the Government can move.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some years ago we indicated to the Italian Government our support for that very proposition?

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are a number of arguments which I could advance, and which no doubt could be advanced by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), which would show the advantages of such an organisation being given the added element of democracy. That is a matter that must be considered after the outcome of the referendum.

Mr. Kirk: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the terms of the treaty are mandatory? As the Government are accepting the treaty and are renegotiating within it, they must have accepted the principle of direct elections and are arguing only about detail.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we discussed the matter in a debate before Christmas. While the principle is there established, the timing of its implementation is a matter for the individual States. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear our views on timing at the Paris Summit.

Political Co-operation

Mr. Roper: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current extent of political co-operation with the European Community.

Mr. Hattersley: A report on political co-operation was included in the Government's White Paper on Developments in the European Communities, March to October 1974 (Cmnd. 5790). There is now regular co-operation on broad problems of foreign policy at many levels involving the Foreign Ministers of member States and their officials. It is increasingly helpful on a number of international questions.

Mr. Roper: In the light of my right hon. Friend's experience of political co-operation in the Community, will he tell us whether he believes that the political influence of this country in the world would be greater or less if we were to withdraw from the Community?

An Hon. Member: That is a soft one.

Mr. Hattersley: If my hon. Friend thinks that that is a question I find easy to answer, he underestimates the difficulties in this situation. Certainly, over a whole range of subjects, including our relationship with the Arab world, our position in face of a potential energy crisis and our relationship as a European Power with the United States, our position is eased and made more powerful by membership of the Community. But were we to choose, as the Government or as the people, that we no longer wished to remain in the Community, we should be able to establish or re-establish a rôle in the world which would be satisfactory to hon. Members.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Scotland may be dragged into the Community after the referendum as a result of the vote of the people of England. Has the right hon. Gentleman told the other member States about the effect of the promised legislation for a Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Hattersley: The other member States were told of the proposals for devolution, contained in the Labour Party manifesto which carried the majority of seats in Scotland, and they know that when the referendum comes the Labour Government are intent on calculating the views of the people as a whole. That must mean, of course, the views of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mrs. Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to get away with it.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that if the renegotiated terms meet the terms of the Labour Party manifesto the Foreign Secretary will recommend them to the British people?

Mr. Hattersley: In his speech to the London Labour mayors, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that he took the view—I do not see how any other view could be taken—that since the Government were operating according to the letter and the spirit of the Labour Party manifesto, on which we fought and won two elections, if the terms of the manifesto were to be achieved and if we obtained the results which we sought to obtain, it would be our automatic duty to recommend acceptance of those terms to the British people. That is the Prime Minister's view, clearly stipulated, and I may say that it is also mine.

Mr. Amery: Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify an important constitutional point? He said that it would be the duty of the Prime Minister and the Government to recommend the terms to the people. Could we be sure that we would first of all have a recommendation to Parliament?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that these constitutional aspects are for me but are for the party leaders and, if I may say so, aspiring party leaders.

Mr. Mikardo: Can my right hon. Friend, for the benefit of the whole House, give an estimate of the authoritativeness of a Government recommendation carried by eight votes to six, with five abstentions?

Mr. Hattersley: I take it that my hon. Friend has been making one of his books again. Since I find his bookmaking ability more reliable than his political judgment, I will leave it at that.

British Membership

Mr. Marquand: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what calculations his Department has made about the effects of United Kingdom withdrawal from the EEC.

Mr. Hattersley: The implications of the United Kingdom's continued membership of or withdrawal from the EEC are kept under review. As my right hon.

Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the House will have an opportunity to debate the whole question at the appropriate time.

Mr. Marquand: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to withdraw one very likely consequence would be that international companies which are now contemplating investment in this country would transfer their investments to the remaining members of the Community? Can he give an undertaking that the Foreign Office will carry out a serious examination of this quantifiable aspect of withdrawal and inform the people, when they come to vote, of the results of the study?

Mr. Hattersley: I must tell the House that we have had notification by some companies that their investment intentions are to some degree dependent on whether Britain remains within the Community or leaves it and finds its future and destiny somewhere else. Clearly, however, this is only one of the considerations we must face. The House regards the future as a matter of balancing the advantages against the disadvantages. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to one of the disadvantages, and that must be balanced along with the general package.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the considerations is that, if we left the Community, food prices to the housewife would be much higher than if we remained inside it, in view of high world prices and continuing shortages?

Mr. Hattersley: There is no question of that. Indeed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has told the House that the overall level of food prices enjoyed here is slightly lower than it would be were we outside the Community. That is the position that exists now. But it would be rash to make long-term predictions. There might be fundamental changes in the cost of raw materials in the world. As things stand at the moment, however, we are in benefit.

Mr. Madden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most extravagant calculations are being voiced by Sir Christopher Soames from Tory Party platforms up and down the country? Will he take steps to ensure that investigations are made


into who is financing Sir Christopher's appearances at these conferences? Will he also take steps to ensure that Sir Christopher concentrates on the job for which he is so lavishly paid?

Mr. Hattersley: It seems to me that it is not Labour Members but Conservatives who should be preoccupied with the future of Sir Christopher Soames. Having said that, however, I must repeat that, irrespective of our judgment as to the accuracy or the value of what Sir Christopher has said or may say, he has rights as a citizen of Great Britain, and I shall continue to defend them.

Mr. Rippon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the question of withdrawal arises, the withdrawal would have to be negotiated and the terms approved by Parliament, as the Foreign Secretary said at his first meeting with the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Hattersley: There can be no question about that. Those who will be most optimistic about our future outside the Community are people like my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who believe that we should come to a free trade arrangement with the Community. That would be a long and, many of us believe, difficult negotiation.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a point about Questions to the Foreign Office? Today we have reached Question No. 11 plus one or two Questions that were taken with them. We have had about five Questions on the EEC. On Wednesday there are only three Departments up for questioning—the Scottish Office, the Department of the Environment and the Foreign Office. On every other day there are at least four Departments. Could we not have four Departments on a Wednesday—Scotland, Environment, straight Foreign Office Questions and, as we are running up to the referendum, Common Market Questions?

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a somewhat different matter but one which is related to today's Question Time. I

wish to refer to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who should appear to answer Questions today. Not only has my right hon. Friend been unable to answer any Questions once again, as has happened since the last election, but he has also not been in a position to answer Questions on many of the fundamental issues with which he has been involved.
It is a well-known fact that the Chancellor of the Duchy has to some degree been one of the most important people operating within the Cabinet. Although every other departmental Minister has to come to the House—albeit for only perhaps 10 minutes every four weeks—the Chancellor of the Duchy has not appeared at all. When we consider that he has had his finger in the pie with Finance for Industry, when we consider his involvement with North Sea oil and all the other areas of finance with which he has been involved, I would have thought that it was high time that we had the Chancellor of the Duchy appearing on the Government Front Bench to answer Questions. It is impossible to have them answered on a Wednesday afternoon because that coincides with Questions relating to the Foreign Office and the Common Market.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy is down for Questions today but that no Questions were put to him.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), the Chair is in a difficulty as to how long should be allowed for each Question. For example, today we had Questions about Cyprus. I thought it was right to allow a considerable number of supplementary questions, which took up a lot of time. I remember, very nearly 30 years ago, that Mr. Speaker used sometimes to have a quick run through, with only one supplementary question. That meant that Ministers were not under any pressure at all. It is important to allow the probing of a Minister's attitude. The question whether the rota should be changed is not a matter for me.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would remind you that, although it is the general practice that you, as Mr. Speaker, being


supposedly in charge of the affairs of this House, always seemingly have the last say, you would do well—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—to reflect on what you had to say a short time ago in answer to my request. The same request has already been made in the course of this Parliament. We attempted then, through you, to get a change in the procedures so that the Chancellor of the Duchy was in a position to answer Questions. The fact was that on that occasion it was said by the Lord President of the Council that an attempt would be made to readjust the situation so that the Chancellor of the Duchy would be in a position to answer Questions. That was accepted by the House, and I understood it had been accepted by you. It is your duty, Mr. Speaker, to see to it that the Chancellor of the Duchy is in a position to answer Questions, and that can only be done by changing the date.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has extended a number of invitations to me on debatable matters, for example, about who has the last word and who is supposedly in charge. I, of course, have to discharge my duties to the House. The order of Questions is laid down, and on Wednesday 29th January the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was down for Questions but no Questions were tabled for him.

Mr. Skinner: There was no point. They would never have been reached.

Mr. Speaker: If a Question is put down there is an answer. Also, the Minister has the option of saying that he will answer the Question at the end of Question Time. I do not think that I am prepared to argue with the hon. Member any more. Those who arrange the business of the House will have heard this exchange.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned earlier that I would raise with you a point of order about the Cypriot situation and the Foreign Office in relation to my Question No. 35. You will recall that the last time the House heard a formal statement from the Foreign Office on the Cypriot situation was 31st July last year. Last week I gave you notice of a request to table a Private Notice Question to the Foreign Office. I did this on two occa-

sions. On the first occasion you rejected the idea because the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to make a Financial Statement and on the second—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is breaching one of the conventions of the House. The issue whether Private Notice Questions are allowed, the reasons given and any argument about them, are not matters for discussion in the House. Otherwise, I assure the hon. Gentleman, the position of Mr. Speaker would become impossible.

Mr. Atkinson: I will not pursue that point but I thought it was relevant to the point I now seek to raise. May I have some clarification from you about next week? You will recall that last week I asked at Business Question Time whether the Lord President could provide an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House and make a statement about the Clerides-Denktash talks which were then taking place and are now in phase 2. These were relevant to us as a guarantor signatory to the treaty under discussion. The Foreign Office has confirmed this afternoon that talks are now to be held between Ivor Richard at the United Nations and the Foreign Secretary, and that the Foreign Secretary is now to discuss with Dr. Kissinger the British rôle in Cyprus.
We heard last week from the Lord President that he saw no hope of any statement or debate. I would have thought that when the Prime Minister reports on his American visit next week he should not rule out the possibility of the Foreign Secretary also answering questions about what he had to say both to Ivor Richard and to Dr. Kissinger. I hope that this request can go down the line, because the House is entitled to know something about the talks now taking place in the name of the British nation. We ought to be able to participate and make our point of view known.

Mr. Speaker: No doubt what the hon. Member has said will have been noted.

TELEVISION LICENCE FEES

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the broadcasting licence fees.
The current licence fees of £7 for black and white and £12 for colour have stood unaltered since July 1971. The British Broadcasting Corporation has applied to the Government for an increase in the licence fee to meet rising costs.
In reviewing the BBC's forecast of expenditure over the next few years, the Government have had to bear in mind different and to some extent conflicting considerations. First, there is the need to ensure an effective and soundly based system of public service broadcasting. To starve this system of funds by failing to make some reasonable provision for rising costs would entail cuts of such severity as to damage the whole balance of services which the corporation has achieved and which are a national asset as well as an important part of individual amenity. But here is another factor. As a country we face a period of exceptional economic difficulty. No sector of our public life can be exempt from the stringency which this entails. In addition, the Government had to bear in mind the incidence of the fee, particularly on those who live alone on small incomes.
We have sought to balance all these considerations and have reached the conclusion that, while an increase in the licence fee for both black and white and colour is inevitable, the BBC must recognise the need for some economies and the public for some limited reduction in the level of the services that the licence fee sustained in 1974. The Government have, therefore, decided that with effect from 1st April the licence fee should be increased from £7 to £8 for black and white and from £12 to £18 for colour television. I believe it right that the rate of increase for black and white, which will he 14·3 per cent. over three and a half years, should be kept as low as possible. The necessary regulations will be laid early next month.

Mr. Lane: The House will want to consider all the implications of the Home Secretary's statement. May I ask him three questions?
First, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House welcome the Government's evident rejection of a direct subsidy from the Exchequer, and

will he confirm that, whatever problems inflation brings, the independence of the BBC will be preserved?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we agree that the BBC, like everyone else, cannot be exempt from the present stringency and the need to make considerable economies, and that any increase in fee will be sorely felt by people living on small incomes?
Thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman say for how long, at present inflation rates, the proposed increases will keep the BBC afloat? Will they be enough to last until the Government decide on the results of the Annan inquiry?

Mr. Jenkins: I am firmly in favour of an independent British Broadcasting Corporation. If there were to be any method of changing the finance, this should await a recommendation from the Annan Committee. To change it in the meantime would involve pre-empting an important part of the work of that committee.
What the hon. Gentleman said about the need for a stringent approach on the part of the BBC underlined what I said in my statement.
On the question of the time scale, it is hoped that this settlement will last for three years, which would see us quite well over the period of the report of the Annan Committee, leaving some time for implementation. But inevitably, with the rates of inflation which have prevailed under successive Governments for the last year or so, it is difficult to make predictions. The settlement must last for at least two years, and if there were to be any earlier review—before that year—it would be for the BBC to make a case in relation both to its own economy and to the external circumstances with which it was confronted.

Mr. Ashley: I am glad that the Government have not given a direct grant in aid, which would have interferred with the independence of the BBC. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that I believe he has given the absolute maximum possible in view of the grave economic crisis and the minimum possible to preserve any hope for the economic viability of the BBC? It is right and proper that the BBC should share hardships


with all of us, but it is wrong that pensioners should suffer hardship. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend have consultations with his ministerial colleagues with a view to making a special grant in aid for old-age pensioners?

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said in the early part of his remarks, which indicated that he thought that, in a difficult situation I had got the matter, if not about right, then not too far wrong.
I am aware of the difficulties confronting those who live alone on smaller incomes, many of whom are retirement pensioners. But the arguments which have prevailed hitherto—and they are substantial arguments—against dealing specially with this matter as opposed to keeping pensions as high as can reasonably be done continue to prevail. On the question of black and white—

Mr. Skinner: What about the judges?

Mr. Jenkins: If my hon. Friend will keep quiet, I shall endeavour to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Treat, South (Mr. Ashley).
While I do not regard the position in 1971 as ideal, the pension rate in April, when the proposed licence increases come into force, will be 130 per cent. above the rate then prevailing, whereas the increase in the black and white television licence I am proposing is 14·3 per cent.

Mr. Beith: I recognise that there have to be cuts in the BBC, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be unfortunate if they fell most on radio and regional developments rather than on the more lavish areas of BBC expenditure? Does he realise that there will be a sense of injustice in areas which do not have a full range of service and therefore feel that they are paying the full licence fee for less than a full service? Will he consider the anomaly whereby concessions in the cost of the television licence are made to blind people but not to deaf and other handicapped people, with a view to making concessions to these other categories of handicapped people?

Mr. Jenkins: In reply to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the provision of services, the cuts will not involve any

retardation of phase 1, which lasts until 1978, of the UHF programme, which is of crucial importance in relation to television coverage.
If one believes in the independence of the BBC, detailed matters about where the cuts should be made are bound to be matters for the BBC and not for me. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish me or the House to instruct the BBC on exactly what it should do.
The last point raised by the hon. Gentleman is not primarily a matter for me. I shall look into it, but I cannot say that it will be possible to meet it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: We welcome the positive element of discrimination between black and white and colour licences, but does my right hon. Friend accept that there is evidence that this can be only a very short interim measure because the pressures on the BBC are so great that unless a complete refinancing project is rapidly undertaken it will not be able to carry on and the discrimination against women's and children's programmes in the afternoon and local radio will be great? There is some evidence that the BBC is using these as counters, including the threat of redundancies among staff, as means of obtaining more money. It will not work for any length of time.

Mr. Jenkins: The BBC knows what the position is. There is no question of a bargaining position remaining, if it ever existed. My hon. Friend slightly exaggerated the extent to which it did. The BBC has been told the position, and, what is proposed, although not exactly what it would have liked, goes a long way to meeting its request. To have gone further would have been incompatible with subjecting the BBC to what I described as the degree of stringency appropriate for all public institutions.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the proposed increases will not enable the programme cuts to be restored and there will have to be further cuts? How would they affect BBC2? Would there be economies of staff or economies of artistes? The Minister responsible for the arts is looking anxious. The arts financed through the BBC are to be curtailed. Will the hon.
Gentleman be allowed a quid pro quo in his efforts to maintain the tailing standards of the Arts Council?

Mr. Jenkins: I am dealing with the BBC and not with the Arts Council. The limited cuts which the BBC has introduced in the past few months will not be restored. There may have to be some further limited cuts and further economies, but there is no question of BBC2 as a separate channel being put in jeopardy.

Mr. Colin Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend note that once again an opportunity has been missed to remedy the injustice between those who live in accommodation with warden services and those who have to pay the full licence? Does he realise that there will be great dissatisfaction with his announcement and much impatience for a change?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that there is a real problem here, and I do not seek to deny its existence. As I think my hon. Friend recognises, it is easier to outline the problem than to propound a satisfactory solution. The increase in the black and white television licence is a very limited increase in view of the length of time involved. It would not have been possible to solve this problem without holding up a solution to the BBC's problems in a way which would have done grave damage to the corporation and provoked a great deal of rightful agitation from the House.

Mr. Paul Dean: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents and others who get programmes in the Welsh language which they do not understand will not take kindly to the increases? Will he at least ensure that, as these people have to pay the same increase as everyone else, a higher priority is given to those parts of the country such as my constituency where the service is inadequate?

Mr. Jenkins: I have already indicated that the UHF programme will continue at the planned level. As to the possible implementation of the Crawford Committee's report in relation to language broadcasting in Wales, the financing of these developments will need to be considered separately, and a working party is looking urgently at that matter.

Mr. Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware that politically there is never a good time for raising the licence fee, and that the careful way that the Government have approached it will be much appreciated and applauded? What will now be the position, as the BBC will be deprived of at least E1 per monochrome licence of what it said was the minimum to carry it through the next few years? Will it not mean a shortfall of £25 million over the three years before the Annan Committee reports? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the cuts which will, therefore, have to be made will be across the BBC as a whole if it is to live within its new means and will not be made simply in the programme services?

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier remarks. I take it that he means a total cumulative shortfall of £25 million and not an annual shortfall during the period.

Mr. Whitehead: Yes.

Mr. Jenkins: With respect, that is a little difficult to predict. The immediate shortfall, compared with giving the BBC the full amount it requested, which was £9 on black and white and £18 on colour, will be about £10 million at an annual rate, but that will not persist in the probable development of events because as time goes on the fee from the colour licence will become proportionately more important. To that extent, the balance which has been struck, as well as having advantages on the ground of safeguarding to some extent the less well-off members of the community who depend not exclusively but to a great extent on black and white television, will also have the advantage that as one moves forward in the period more revenue will become available to the BBC.
As to where the cuts will fall, that again is a matter for the BBC and not for me, but I should think it appropriate that the BBC, applying what I hope will be a reasonable economic approach, will regard the cuts as applying over a wide range.

Mr. Henderson: As I had to buy a television set at the insistence of my children, this proposal affects me. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will be difficult for my hon. Friends and


me to support the regulations which he is to bring before the House unless there are considerable improvements in the BBC's services? Is he aware that it is impossible to get proper coverage of BBC services in many parts of Scotland? Some may say that that is an advantage.
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are becoming increasingly concerned about the low calibre of the programmes because of the low budget available to the BBC in Scotland, and that we hope that some of the money will go towards improving the quality of output? Is he also aware that we shall expect a corresponding increase for the independent companies, which have also suffered from inflation and which, in the opinion of many people, do equally as good a job as does the BBC?

Mr. Jenkins: Televsion coverage is essentially a matter of continuing with the UHF programme, which I have said will be continued without any retardation. That is the important point. I note the hon. Gentleman's hesitation about supporting the regulations unless he gets a better service. I assure him that if he were successful in not supporting the regulations he would get a much worse service. The choices are between having a much worse service, doing what we propose—which is reasonable—or going for a substantially higher fee, which I do not think would be reasonable in present circumstances.
I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the nature of the programmes is a matter for the BBC and not for me. I do not propose to become a director of the BBC, and I do not believe that any hon. Member in the House would wish me to do that. The programmes would probably be a great deal worse were I to do so. The Independent Broadcasting Authority and the companies with which it is linked are not publicly financed and, therefore, cannot be subject to the announcement which I made.

Mr. Golding: I understand the need for an inrease in income to save BBC 2 and local radio, but is the Minister aware that there will be bitter resentment of his 50 per cent. increase by those whose only luxury is to have a colour televsion set? Is he aware that judges and low-

paid workers will both have to meet the additional cost, and for that reason alone the Government should give a direct grant rather than increasing the licence fee for low-paid workers.

Mr. Jenkins: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. There is no alternative other than a severe cut in the service or the increase in the licence fee which I have awarded. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend dissents from the proposal being in favour of black and white television, to help the worse-off, and weighing slightly more heavily on colour television. But even on colour television during the three-and-a-half years which have gone by the increase is not very significant. It is little more—about 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. more—than is the increase in the retail price index, and in two or three years will almost certainly become significantly less than the general increase in prices. It would have been impossible and totally unreasonable to have asked the Annan Committee to consider future broadcasting, including the financing of the BBC, and then almost before it had started work to pre-empt it by a decision changing the basis. I know that my hon. Friend is in favour of the committee and is interested in it.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Home Secretary consider the position of the many people in rural areas who are able to receive only one channel? The £18 is divisible into three, and it does not seem to be beyond the wit of man to provide that people who can receive only one channel should pay £6, those able to receive two channels £12, and those able to receive three channels £18, until the UHF programme reaches these rural areas.

Mr. Jenkins: As the fee does not finance one of the channels—the independent channel—the neat bit of arithmetic done by the hon. Gentleman is not wholly appropriate.

Mr. Roderick: I appreciate the difficulties which the BBC faces and the need to increase its income, but does my right hon. Friend realise that most of my constituents have either inadequate reception or none at all? Will he urge upon the BBC the need to step up its programme of building relay stations and reconsider the position of people who have to pay twice over—for a licence and for cable?

Mr. Jenkins: If my hon. Friend cares to put that last question to me in detail, I will consider it. On the earlier point, it is difficult for me to urge on the BBC both economy and the stepping up of programmes. I have ensured that the UHF programme goes along without interruption. The recommendations of the Crawford Committee in so far as they relate to my hon. Friend's constituency need to be considered separately.

Mr. Jopling: May I press the Home Secretary to give an assurance that the Government will seriously consider the position of rural areas in which only a limited number of channels is available? Does he realise that, even taking into account the arguments about the extra cost of bringing programmes to these rural areas, there is, in the light of the increases that he has announced today, a real case for reductions in the licence fee to be made in certain designated parishes and areas where programme reception is limited?

Mr. Jenkins: I understand the point made by the hon. Member and by hon. Gentlemen. It is not a new one. The situation is not new. However, it is not a point on which successive Ministers of successive Governments responsible for broadcasting have felt able to make a differentiation. I do not feel able to make a differentiation. I am extremely eager that high priority should be given to the question of the areas which have poor or deficient reception.

Mr. Dan Jones: Will the Home Secretary obtain from the BBC, before the increases are applied, assurances that no wage or salary increases for the artistes, staff or executives will be outside the social contract? Secondly, will it be possible for the BBC to install efficiency teams within the BBC to prevent over-manning?

Mr. Jenkins: On the first point, as I think the House knows, we were not entirely satisfied with the BBC's handling of its wage negotiations during the summer. That is a matter which is behind us now. I believe we have set up better arrangements for consultations in the future. I think the BBC is aware of

considerations which it must take into account.
As to my hon. Friend's second suggestion I am not necessarily convinced that the expenditure of money upon efficiency teams always produces greater efficiency in proportion to the expenditure. We could all find examples of extravagance in the BBC which probably we have all witnessed, but we could find them in relation to most other organisations of comparable size. I have impressed upon the BBC the need for economy, and I have reinforced that exhortation with a financial incentive—indeed, a financial imperative—by not giving the BBC as much money as it wishes to have. At the same time, I point out, in fairness to the BBC, that the more important criteria of the cost per programme hour and the output per square foot of studio space compare well with both the independent companies and, by virtue of international comparison, television companies abroad.

Mr. John Page: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed full colour television licence charge will cost an individual the same as the cost of one first-class letter per day? I believe the viewing public think it is good value for money, especially in view of the fact that it is a lower charge than people pay for the hiring of the television sets on which they receive their programmes.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take further steps to see that the licence fees are paid by as many people as possible and that there are not too many people slipping through the net?

Mr. Jenkins: One dislikes any increase, and particularly one as big as that for the colour television licence. The fact remains that, compared with many other forms of expenditure, this is good value.
Evasion has been, and remains, a problem. It is one which we are extremely anxious to deal with. Compared with nine years ago, the number of licence evaders has been reduced from approximately 2 million to approximately 650,000. I think that the figure of 650,000 is too great but the two-thirds' reduction marks up progress against evasion, and I hope and intend that that will continue.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (BUSINESS)

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a statement about business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community during February. The monthly forecast for February was deposited yesterday.
At present four meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for February. Agriculture Ministers will meet on 10th to 12th February, Foreign Ministers on 10th to 11th February, Energy Ministers on 13th February, and Finance Ministers on 17th February.
Agriculture Ministers will resume their consideration of farm prices for 1975–76 and other associated measures. They also expect to have before them the Commission's "stock-taking" report on the CAP.
At the Foreign Affairs Council, Ministers will be concerned with budget renegotiation on the basis of the Commission's report on the details of the correcting mechanism. They are likely also to discuss the operating procedures for the Regional Development Fund; freedom of establishment and mutual recognition of qualifications for doctors; two proposed directives on pharmaceutical products and preparations for the multilateral trade negotiations. They may also discuss the relationship between the EEC and the International Energy Agency and the preparations of the oil consumer/producer dialogue. Foreign Ministers may also need to consider the preparations for the next Heads of Government meeting in Dublin in mid-March. Energy Ministers will continue their discussion of the general objectives for the different energy sectors.
Finance Ministers will have their usual monthly discussion of the economic situation in the Community, and may consider a draft regulation on European monetary co-operation.

Mr. Rippon: I thank the Minister for his business statement, which once again demonstrates, if I may say so, the wide range of matters of mutual interest and

concern which Ministers can discuss within the framework of the European Communities. However, will the Minister clarify one point? He has said that the Ministers at the Foreign Affairs Council may also discuss the relationship between the Community and the International Energy Agency and the preparation of the oil consumer/producer dialogue. Will he give an assurance that the Government will press for that to be included on the agenda, because it is obviously a matter of great concern to all people in this country and in Europe?

Mr. Hattersley: I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance gladly. I assure him that our twin aims during those preparatory discussions are to make sure as best we can that there is a co-ordinated community position and that the national interests of Great Britain are adequately recognised.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The Minister referred to the fact that the Foreign Ministers Council will be talking about the operating procedures for the regional fund. Is he yet in any position to give an indication of the Government's attitude towards the composition of the proposed advisory council for the regional fund that will be established throughout the Community, and how Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England, will be represented on that?

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the Council of Ministers this month that he hoped to see the fund in operation in March and that, as part of our hopes of making speedy progress for its organisation, we have made proposals about the committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I think it would be wrong for me to say today what our bid is within the committees of the European Economic Communty. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will discover, when the conclusions are published, that we understand the various national needs and will insist on those national needs being fully safeguarded.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Will my right hon. Friend say something about the timetable? This is very important in view of the fact that we are working towards a time in respect of the referendum.

Mr. Hattersley: The Prime Minister told the House, I think, fourteen days ago that he hoped that the ministerial stage—the Brussels and Luxembourg stage—of the renegotiations would be completed by Easter. As my hon. Friend will see from the items of business I have announced this afternoon, we expect to see a good deal of progress on several fronts to be made in February. If that progress goes as we anticipate, the Prime Minister's timetable will be acceptable as being the one that turns out to be the case.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the House has not yet taken note of the papers relevant to the meeting of the Ministers of Agriculture. Will he give an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity to do that before the meeting?

Mr. Hattersley: I understand—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that the House has debated this already. It will have a second opportunity to do so in the near future. However, I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whilst we debated the agricultural price review in Europe a couple of weeks ago, we shall be debating the other orders referred to by the right hon. Gentleman next Wednesday. However, could he elaborate further concerning the meeting of the Agriculture Ministers? Will the Agriculture Ministers be dealing with the MCAs at that meeting? What is the position of the Government regarding accepting the proposals?

Mr. Hattersley: Clearly, to discuss, as we expect to do, both the stock-taking report of the CAP and the price machine for the coming year, there is bound to be some discussion of the MCAs. The Government's attitude is a matter of substance which must be raised with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Moate: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Foreign Ministers would be discussing the correcting mechanism. I presume that he meant the correcting mechanism in respect of the national contributions to budgets. Is that an entirely separate matter from the taxes

which in theory are supposed to form the so-called "own resources" of the Community, and, if so, is it still the Government's position that they find those taxes representing the so-called own resources an unacceptable proposition?

Mr. Hattersley: The two are not entirely separate and, had the hon. Gentleman's Question on the subject been reached earlier, it was my intention to try to explain that. Certainly the Government were critical of both the incidence and the level of those taxes. The correcting mechanism is concerned with levels, and in a number of areas we have insisted that the incidence—for instance, the zero-rating of VAT—is also a matter for national determination. I think that we are fulfilling our obligations on both counts.

Mr. Spriggs: Can my right hon. Friend help hon. Members who represent the North-West Region of England on a matter which affects the textile industry and redundancies resulting from the importation of foreign cloths? Can he and his right hon. Friends arrange to put this matter on the agenda for discussion in order to give some protection to the British textile industry, especially that part of it operating in Lancashire?

Mr. Hattersley: If I understand my hon. Friend's question aright, it deals with knitted cloths of one sort or another from the Far East. If that is what my hon. Friend has in mind, I can assure him that it is now under urgent consideration. My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that it is not necessarily a matter of putting it on a series of Council of Ministers agendas. Whenever there has been a serious problem of this kind we have been able to talk to the Commission about it informally and quickly and to obtain derogations from damaging rules in a period of 24 or perhaps 36 hours. It happened to cotton yarn when Lancashire was in difficulties before Christmas. We shall look at this problem with equal urgency.

Mr. Kirk: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, in the discussion on the preparations for the Dublin summit, will there be any discussion of the secretariat? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman yet say, in the discussions on setting up the operating mechanism for the regional fund,


how the money will be raised originally and whether there is to be virement of the kind referred to in the summit communiqué?

Mr. Hattersley: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's second question immediately without notice. With regard to his first question on the setting up of the secretariat for the Heads of Government meeting, there will be no secretariat set up in and for the Dublin meeting. That continues to be a matter of discussion in the Community, and the British Government view continues to be that, although there may be a case for some body, it would be a small body with a minimum of staff and a minimum of obligations.

Mr. Noble: May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs)? The Lancashire textile industry was grateful and pleased to note the restriction on yarn imports, but I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that yarn is now finding its way into the country in the form of grey cloth and that there is some evidence to indicate that yarn from Turkey and Greece, on which restrictions were imposed, is now finding its way into Belgium, where it is woven into cheap cloth and then sent into this country. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that action is taken about this?

Mr. Hattersley: If my hon. Friends care to see me about this matter, I shall welcome it, and I shall try to do something similar on this occasion to what we did just before Christmas.

LOTTERIES BILL

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On today's Order Paper there is notice of the presentation of a Government Bill, the Long Title of which includes the sentence
… to authorise local authorities to promote lotteries.
It will be within your recollection that on 27th November last I presented a Bill, the Long Title of which was in exactly those words—
… to authorise local authorities to promote lotteries.

That Bill has been printed and published, and it is set down for Second Reading on Friday of this week.
In the Commons Journal of 1st June as long ago as 1610 it is stated:
… no bill of the same substance to be brought in in the same Session. So agreed for rule.
Page 479 of "Erskine May" repeats that rule.
My first submission, therefore, is that under that rule you should not allow the presentation of this Government Bill, which appears to be an endeavour to sabotage Private Members' Business on Friday. It seems to me that I am being gazumped, if that is parliamentary language.
My second submission is that if you allow the Government's Bill to be presented on the ground that it contains other matters also, you should not allow, in answer to your question, "Second Reading what day?", the customary answer, "Tomorrow". If in Government time the Government Bill is given a Second Reading tomorrow or on any day before the Second Reading debate on my Bill is concluded, my Bill falls to the ground.
The Government seem to have adopted a fantastic procedure to stifle Private Members' legislation, and I ask for your protection.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for warning me that he intended to raise this point of order. This has enabled me to consider it in advance.
The presentation of the Government's Lotteries Bill is completely within, order as
There is no rule or custom which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject, and containing similar provisions.
That rule is to be found in "Erskine May", 18th edition, page 479. What is more, on the assumption that the Government do not intend to move the Second Reading of their Bill tomorrow, since they have announced other business, the presentation of the Government Bill does not prevent the right hon. Gentleman from moving the Second Reading of his Local Lotteries Bill on Friday.
I cannot forecast later proceedings on either Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling. When the Government ask that the Second Reading of their Bill be tomorrow, surely this House must consider that it may well be tomorrow or on some other day before the Second Reading debate on my own Bill has been concluded. If the Government Bill had a Second Reading, you would be unable to put the question on my Bill, "That the Bill be read a Second time". That is sabotaging Private Members' Business.

Mr. Speaker: Strictly speaking, the right hon. Gentleman is correct. However, the occasions on which I have heard the word "Tomorrow" in this House when it has borne no relation to what happens tomorrow are beyond count. Clearly, it is not the Government's intention to proceed tomorrow. But it is not a matter for me. I am sure that the Government will have noted the right hon. Gentleman's point.

BILL PRESENTED

LOTTERIES

Mr. Secretary Jenkins, supported by Mr. Secretary Crosland, Mr. Secretary Prentice, Mr. Secretary Ross, Dr. John Gilbert, and Dr. Shirley Summerskill, presented a Bill to make further provision with regard to lotteries promoted on behalf of societies or as incidents of entertainments; to authorise local authorities to promote lotteries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 70].

REQUISITIONING OF EMPTY HOUSES

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give local authorities the power to requisition all dwellings when unoccupied for six months, except an empty flat in an owner-occupied house.
At the last Census in 1971, there were 676,000 empty houses and flats in England and Wales. If one adds to that the numbers in Scotland and Northern Ireland, one finds that the total represents three times the number of new dwellings built in the whole of the United Kingdom last year. Since then, the number of empty houses has increased. Many thousands of houses and flats have been empty for years, at a time when millions of men, women and children are desperately in need of proper homes.
When a house is left empty, within a matter of weeks children throw bricks through windows. They climb inside and light fires. Sometimes the house is set on fire, together with neighbouring houses. Thieves steal the lead from the roof, and they steal lead piping, with the result that in some cases they cut off the water supply not only of the house concerned but of a whole terrace of houses. Rubbish is dumped inside, leading to rats, mice, bugs and flies congregating there. Before long, the council have to brick up the empty house and often demolish it entirely.
This is an obvious provocation to squatters. There is nothing more galling to people who are homeless or having to share houses with an in-law than to see sound houses and flats going to ruin in this way. It is a major national scandal, and often occurs because property owners are holding out for a high selling price or a high rent. In some cases the owner cannot be traced since he has died, gone to Australia, or disappeared.
I should like to give some examples of this scandal which have been provided to me by hon. Friends within the last few days. I refer first to Consort Management, part of the Freshwater Group, which has 223 vacant units, 81 of them in Camden. They have been vacant for up to 18 months. The owners are deli-


berately keeping them empty with a view to obtaining high selling prices. In other words, those units are more profitable when not tenanted.
In Manchester an attractive bungalow has been empty for seven years because the elderly widow who owned it died without leaving a will and the nine near relatives have still not sorted out who is the rightful heir to the property. In Putney nine out of 32 flats in a modern and highly desirable block have been empty for a year. The owners refuse either to sell or to let. In Barrow-in-Furness the council recently discussed the fact that there were more houses empty for a long period than an average year's supply of new homes in that town. In a recent court case Mr. Justice Templeman criticised the owners of the Nash houses in Cornwall Terrace, Albany Street, for leaving property empty for five years when there are so many homeless people.
The rating of empty property has not had the desired effect, nor has the CPO procedure. Compulsory purchase powers exist, but the procedure is so lengthy and cumbersome that in many cases it can take more than a year.
The Bill would provide that at the end of the fifth month notice of intent would be served by the local authority on the owner or his agent. Requisitioning would be selective. Councils would not have to take over rubbish which was not worth maintaining. They would take over empty properties and let them to those in greatest need. Requisitioning under the Bill would cost the council, the ratepayer and taxpayer nothing. No loans would have to be raised for purchase or repairs. Instead, fair rents registered on the properties and paid by the new tenants would be paid to the owners, less the amount spent on management and upkeep.
The main effect of the Bill would be to give owners an incentive to let or sell quickly and at more reasonable rents or prices, and thus would ease the severe housing shortage. It would also deter speculators from entering the private dwellings racket—or perhaps I should say market, although it certainly is a racket.
Some of my hon. Friends think the maximum period for keeping a house empty should be three rather than six

months, but, since everybody in the House knows what a moderate person I am, I suggest that we should set a six-months' limit in the Bill. We can then wait to see how it succeeds.
One argument against the proposal is that it would be contrary to our sense of justice to deprive owners of their right of appeal. However, in the Bill there is right of appeal, but without the long delay which is at present involved in the CPO procedure. At the end of the fifth month the owner would be given notice by the council. If no action were then taken the council would install a tenant regarded as a priority case from its waiting list. The owner would be able to appeal although meanwhile the tenant was living in the dwelling. Should the owner later win the appeal, he would regain possession and the local authority would rehouse the tenant elsewhere.
There are other vitally needed housing reforms which are being held back because of lack of finance, but this reform, in contrast, would not cost the Government a penny.
I do not expect any support for this measure from the Conservative benches, but I should like to see the Labour Government take over the Bill, and, indeed, I would gladly hand it over to them.
I wish to thank Councillor Sam Waldman, of Camden, chairman of one of the largest associations of private landlords' tenants in the country; I also wish to thank the hon. Members for Paddington (Mr. Latham) and Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), and also Mr. Ormandy, of the Public Health Advisory Service, for their help and advice. The 11 Members of Parliament who are the joint sponsors of the Bill are housing experts and represent different areas where this scandalous situation exists.
This Bill for the emergency occupation of empty houses and flats is not intended as a permanent or complete solution to the housing problem. I wish it were. But we are living in a time of grave housing shortage. So long as the emergency lasts, this reform should remain. People must come before property. Although this is hardly an original doctrine, nevertheless it is a good one.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Finsberg: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I start on a non-controversial note by wishing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a very happy birthday? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] That is probably the last non-controversial thing I shall say today.
I hope that the House will not grant leave to introduce the Bill. I have no doubt at all about the genuine sincerity of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), and whatever I may say in my remarks will not take away from that attitude about the hon. Gentleman.
However, the Bill is yet another step in the Labour Party's inexorable policy and campaign against private ownership of property. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wanted to introduce the Bill, he could have done so instead of making sedentary comments, when he knows that none of us intervened in his hon. Friend's speech.
I have no doubt that successive pieces of legislation culminating in the Housing Act and the Rent Act enacted in 1974 have played their part in drying up rented accommodation and forcing owners to leave their properties empty. Our legal system is so slow that they cannot get rid of people who are squatting on their premises.
Why do owners leave properties empty? There is a wide variety of reasons. I could mention planning permission, death and what follows, builders' estimates and other matters. I could also quote in this context what was said by a junior Minister on 22nd January:
Houses may be empty for many reasons. They may be in process of being let, sold,

converted or improved, or they may be vacant because of coming redevelopment."—[Official Report, 22nd January 1975; Vol. 884, c. 403.]
It is far too easy for blanket condemnations to be made such as those we heard in the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, East.

Mr. Dan Jones: rose—

Mr. Finsberg: No, I am sorry but I have only 10 minutes in which to make my points.
The hon. Member for Salford, East is seeking in his Bill to expropriate property and hand it over to the local authority. But will this help? Anyone with eyes who is not blinkered will know that local authorities are as guilty as private landlords of leaving properties empty, and for far less reason. Equally, as the most recent Government circular showed, their standards of management and maintenance leave much to be desired. Until a few months ago I had 25 years of local government experience, and I have criticised councils of both political parties for this. It is clear that we might need to use more penalty rating. I have no time for the Bergers and Freshwaters of this world, but not all landlords are like them.
Local authorities already have too much property which they manage inadequately, as many tenants tell us in our mail. I can give examples from three London boroughs. In Redbridge eight houses in two streets have been empty for five years, in Ealing four houses have been empty for four years and in Lewisham 41 properties have been empty since before 1971. All are in the ownership of the local authority. I doubt whether Salford owns no property which has been empty for that sort of period. I take my figures not from the Estates Gazette or the Estate Times or Aims of Industry but from one of the most recent publications of Shelter.
The Bill will achieve nothing for the homeless but much for Socialism. I hope


that the House will be sensible enough to refuse the hon. Member leave to introduce it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring

DIVISION No. 75.]
AYES
[4.32 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Newens, Stanley


Allaun, Frank
Freud, Clement
Orbach, Maurice


Archer, Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Ovenden, John


Ashley, Jack
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Owen, Dr David


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce
Padley, Walter


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ginsburg, David
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Golding, John
Pardoe, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gould, Bryan
Park, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gourlay, Harry
Parker, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Graham, Ted
Parry, Robert


Bates, Alf
Grocott, Bruce
Pavitt, Laurie


Bean, R. E.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Perry, Ernest


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hamling, William
Phipps, Dr Colin


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Radice, Giles


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hatton, Frank
Reid, George


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bradley, Tom
Heffer Eric S.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Henderson, Douglas
Roderick, Caerwyn


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hooley, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Rooker, J. W.


Buchanan, Richard
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Rose, Paul B.


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Huckfield, Les
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Callaghan. Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ryman, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Sandelson, Neville


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sedgemore, Brian


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Selby, Harry


Cartwright, John
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Clemitson, Ivor
Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Janner, Greville
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Sillars, James


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jenkins. Hugh (Putney)
Silverman, Julius


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Skinner, Dennis


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Kelley, Richard
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Crawford, Douglas
Kerr, Russell
Snape, Peter


Crawshaw, Richard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Cronin, John

Spriggs, Leslie


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lamborn, Harry
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lamond, James
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)



Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stoddart, David


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stott, Roger


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lipton, Marcus
Swain, Thomas


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Litterick, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Delargy, Hugh
Loyden, Eddie
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Luard, Evan
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dolg, Peter
MacCormick, Iain
Thompson, George


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dunlop, John
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Dunn, James A.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tierney, Sydney


Dunnett, Jack
Madden, Max
Tomlinson, John


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Magee, Bryan
Torney, Tom


Edelman, Maurice
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Edge, Geoff
Marks, Kenneth
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Marquand, David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ward, Michael


English, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Watkins, David


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Meacher, Michael
Watkinson, John


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Watt, Hamish


Evans, John (Newton)
Mikardo, Ian
Weetch, Ken


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Weitzman, David


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Wellbeloved, James


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Welsh, Andrew


Flannery, Martin
Molloy, William
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, James (Pollock)


Forrester, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whitehead, Phillip

in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at the commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes, 223, Noes 204.

Whitlock, William
Wilson, Gordon (Dundeo E)



Wigley, Dafydd
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Dan Jones and


Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Woodall, Alec
Mr. Mike Noble.


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Young, David (Bolton E)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Hall, Sir John
Nott, John


Alison, Michael
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Parkinson, Cecil


Arnold, Tom
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(Spelthorne)
Hannam, John
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Baker, Kenneth
Harvie, Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Pink, R. Bonner


Banks, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bell, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Benyon, W.
Hayhoe, Barney
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Berry, Hon Anthony
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Raison, Timothy


Biffen, John
Heseltine, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Biggs-Davison, John
Hicks, Robert
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hordern, Peter
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Howell Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ridsdale, Julian


Brotherton, Michael
Hurd, Douglas
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Bryan, Sir Paul
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buck, Antony
Jessel, Toby
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bulmer, Esmond
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Burden, F. A.
Jopling, Michael
Royle, Sir Anthony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Sainsbury, Tim


Carlisle, Mark
Kaberry, Sir Donald
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kimball, Marcus
Scott, Nicholas


Channon, Paul
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Churchill, W. S.
Kirk, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Colin


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lane, David
Silvester, Fred


Cope, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sims, Roger


Cormack, Patrick
Lawrence, Ivan
Sinclair, Sir George


Costain, A. P.
Lawson, Nigel
Skeet, T. H. H.


Crouch, David
Le Merchant, Spencer
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spence, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lloyd, Ian
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luce, Richard
Sproat, Iain


Drayson, Burnaby
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stainton, Keith


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McCrindle, Robert
Stanley, John


Dykes, Hugh
Macfarlane, Neil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stokes, John


Elliott, Sir William
Madel, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mates, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mather, Carol
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fell, Anthony
Maude, Angus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mayhew, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mills, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Miscampbell, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Warren, Kenneth


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Molyneaux, James
Wells, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Monro, Hector
Wiggin, Jerry


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhart, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint
Younger, Hon George


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)



Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Mr. Nick Budgen and


Gray, Hamish
Mudd, David
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.


Griffiths Eldon
Neubert, Michael



Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Arthur Latham, Mr. Douglas-Mann, Mr. Blenkinsop, Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Ron Thomas, Mrs. Wise, Mr. Dan Jones, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Mike Noble, and Mr. Julius Silverman.

REQUISITIONING OF EMPTY HOUSES

Mr. Frank Allaun accordingly presented a Bill to give local authorities the power to requisition all dwellings when unoccupied for six months, except an empty flat in an owner-occupied house; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28th February and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to basic scheme benefits and benefits in respect of industrial injuries and diseases; to increase family allowances; and to amend Parts I and III of Schedule 2 to the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966, it is expedient to authorise any payment out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to provisions for extending the noncontributory invalidity pension under the said Act of the present Session to women who are incapable of performing normal household duties.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I should like to make some comments about this money resolution, which begins our proceedings on the Report stage of the Social Security Benefits Bill.
There was considerable concern in Committee about the original money resolution. Indeed, this money resolution is an amendment forced upon the Government as a result of pressure and defeats in Committee. The original resolution upon which the Committee proceedings were based was a tightly drawn, mean-minded resolution which tried to restrict to the utmost the scope for debate and for amendment of the Bill as it made its way through the House.
The original resolution, which is now, fortunately, to be conceded to some slight extent with the fresh resolution, incorporated what was then the deliberate intention of the Government to exclude disabled housewives from the non-contributory invalidity pension. It was so designed that the Committee was supposed not to be able to discuss or to move matters pertaining to disabled housewives. It was in order to back up what was then the Government's policy intention of paying them later than other recipients of the new benefit and paying them at a lesser rate than that which other recipients would have received. Not only did the Government stick to that deplorable policy position but, by means of the money resolution, they tried to stop Parliament amending or discussing that intention.
This money resolution arises because, as the result of great ingenuity, amendments were carried in Committee which brought disabled housewives into the position in which they could have been paid out of the National Insurance Fund. That ingenuity was, in fact, that of Mr. Peter Large and Mr. Stuart Lyon, of the Disablement Income Group. They are well known to hon. Members who follow this subject. They provided the drafting for extremely carefully chosen amendments which my hon. Friends, assisted by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), were able to carry against the Government votes in Committee.
Therefore, because the draftsmanship was ingenious and, therefore, a little clumsy, the Government have been forced to bring forward this extra money resolution so that now the provision which has been forced upon them to include disabled housewives in this new benefit can be put in more sensible legislative form.
The resolution before us gives no other concessions. It excludes important matters from our debates on Report. It still totally excludes married women from receiving the new invalid care allowance which is being set up by the Government. It also introduces a cohabitation rule for this new allowance, thereby extending that somewhat unfortunate feature in social security provision into yet a new benefit


The Under-Secretary agreed to look at that particular point when we mentioned it in Committee on 14th January, at column 337 of the Official Report. But, despite the fact that he undertook to look at it, no amendment has been made to the money resolution and nothing is incorporated in this resolution which enables us to move amendments to discuss this exclusion of married women and the cohabitation rule on invalid care allowance. The Opposition amendments which would have sought to do this have been ruled out by Mr. Speaker because they are outside the rules of order.
The only change to the new invalid pension is to enable disabled housewives to be brought in, which we very much welcome. We are glad that we have forced that on the Government. But still the invalidity pension is subject to a 100 per cent. earnings rule, and still those who receive it have to be, for 196 days, incapable of work.
Those matters are not to be capable of discussion or amendment on Report because the money resolution does not go far enough to enable us to do that. It also seeks to exclude family allowance for the first child being introduced, contrary to the Government's policy position. It also ties the rates of family allowance and of most other benefits.
Because the second money resolution has been dragged out of the Government in response to the Committee and is a concession to face up to one of the defeats which they suffered in Committee, we shall allow it to pass without dividing the House. But we should go on record as saying that we deplore the tightness of drafting of these resolutions and that we should like the Minister and the Treasury to realise that there remains far too much pressure in all legislation on social security to get it quickly through the House with the minimum of decisions and attempts made to exclude Members from opportunities of amending or increasing expenditure significantly. When Government proposals come forward in future legislation, we shall scrutinise such resolutions with great care. We regret that this resolution does not go much further.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: May I welcome the resolution which permits the introduction of a new and unique

benefit? It will enable us to accept Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8, which delete the amendments I made in Committee with the support of Conservative Members.
May I enter a plea on behalf of back benchers? On neither side do we want to be treated as Lobby fodder. If the Treasury drafts money resolutions in such a way that hon. Members cannot move amendments in Standing Committee we might as well not go into Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) pointed out that through my contacts with the Disablement Income Group a man in a wheelchair found a way of beating the Treasury, and I am delighted to have been the vehicle for that achievement. I and my hon. Friends—if I may call them that—on the Conservative side managed to get the proposal in.
I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench welcome the new money resolution since they were stifled by the Treasury. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would urge that the interests of back benchers be protected in the future so that money resolutions are not drafted in a way which prevents us from moving reasonable amendments in Committee.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I strongly support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and—if I may call him so on this occasion—my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), because these matters are entirely cross-party.
Like the hon. Member for Eccles, I welcome that the Government have accepted and have now incorporated in the money resolution extension of the new invalidity pension to disabled housewives. May I fortify the hon. Member's point that the House is put in a very difficult position if the Treasury always insists on drafting money resolutions so tightly? We do not want to go into Committee points on Second Reading when the Chair is always inundated with potential orators and has a difficulty in selecting who are to speak. It invites hon. Members on both sides of the House to be brief. But it creates difficulties if hon. Members are, therefore, compelled


on Second Reading to raise narrow points because the money resolution precedes discussion of them in Committee. We have to resort to various devices which are far from elegant and add very little to the dispatch of our business.
I would not object to narrowly-drawn money resolutions if the House had a Select Committee on social security in the way that it has a Select Committee on Science and Technology. Such a Committee would keep these matters permanently under examination. The Departments concerned and appropriate outside bodies could give evidence and be examined. However, since we do not have such a Select Committee we have virtually no opportunity of discussing in detail the sort of points raised by the hon. Member for Eccles.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe talked about whether family allowances should apply to the first child. Under this money resolution we could not discuss that matter in Standing Committee. Quite rightly, the Chair ruled it out of order, but it is a proper subject for discussion. These matters were discussed by the admirable Select Committee on tax credits, but that Committee was a one-off job and was not permanent.
I apologise for detaining the House on this point, but this is one of those rare opportunities when one can raise these matters. If we do not have a permanent Select Committee to look into these points the Government must allow more time in Standing Committee and, in spite of their desire to get the business through, permit much wider-ranging money resolutions. It is for the Government of the day to decide which they prefer. I should be happy with a Select Committee on a permanent basis, and then I would be satisfied with the present method by which money resolutions are drawn. In the absence of such a Select Committee, the Government must draw their money resolutions less tightly and permit the Treasury only to provide the money but to have no say in the terms of the resolution.

4.56 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): First, I congratulate the

Opposition Front Bench, following what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, on their new-found conscience. He referred specifically and with great concern to the whole question of family poverty and family allowances, yet it was his party which made a pledge before 1970 to the Child Poverty Action Group which his Government failed to implement between 1970 and 1974.
The hon. Member pushed his case just a little too hard. Nevertheless, I congratulate him on his speech because I have delivered similar speeches from the Opposition Dispatch Box. When I did it, however, I had justification in that the measures brought forward by the last administration were far meaner than anything we have brought forward.
I must explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) that it is not true to say that if money resolutions are to be drafted as tightly as this there might as well not be a Committee stage. We heard from my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman effectively in Committee, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success in persuading the Government that it was right that the Bill should enable disabled housewives to receive the non-contributory invalidity pension. It must be put on the record, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out before Second Reading that she hoped to legislate specifically on this matter later in the Session.
I understand the points made by back benchers about the effect of tightly-drawn money resolutions. One must leave it to Governments to exercise some discretion on the matter. It has traditionally been the case that money resolutions are tightly drafted because Governments need, particularly at a time like this, to keep tight control over public expenditure.
I am pleased that the House will accept this money resolution which will enable it to take the decision later to enable disabled housewives to receive the noncontributory invalidity pension.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend indicate how the resolution, if passed, will affect Amendment No. 2?

Mr. O'Malley: The amendments in my name are within the scope of the first money resolution. The second resolution simply allows payment from the Consolidated Fund in respect of the invalidity pension for disabled housewives. The new resolution therefore relaxes the conditions which were set out in the first resolution which the House passed before the Bill went into Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to basic scheme benefits and benefits in respect of industrial injuries and diseases; to increase family allowances; and to amend Paris I and III of Schedule 2 to the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966, it is expedient to authorise any payment out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to provisions for extending the non-contributory invalidity pension under the said Act of the present Session to women who are incapable of performing normal household duties.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

RECOVERY OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES

'In section 8(1) of the Family Allowances Act 1965 (application of section 81 of the National Insurance Act 1965 to recovery of allowances wrongly paid etc.) for llic words "section 81(1) to (4)" there shall be substituted the words "section 81(1) and (2) to (4)" and for the words from "but" to the end there shall be substituted the words "and any sums repaid to the Secretary of State by virtue of this subsection shall be paid by him into the Consolidated Fund"'.—(Mr. Alec Jones)

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this amendment we are to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 24.

Mr. Jones: The House will be pleased to know that we can at least start off on an even keel, with no great controversy.
The clause is an entirely technical amendment, required to remove any doubt as to the destination of sums of family allowance recovered as wrongly paid. The money is properly payable into the Consolidated Fund, whereas Section 81(1)(a) of the National Insurance Act 1965 appears to suggest that it might be payable into the National Insurance Fund.
The error arose when Section 81 was amended by paragraph 15 of Part I of Schedule 21 to the Social Security Act 1973. It was overlooked at the time that as family allowances were not among the benefits specified as falling to be paid into the Consolidated Fund on recovery they would automatically fall within the group of benefits to be paid into the National Insurance Fund. The clause


ensures that the position is restored unequivocally to that intended by the Family Allowances Act 1965.
The four amendments are similarly technical. The first three ensure that the provision in the new clause applies equally to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 24 amends the Long Title to include a reference to the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

FIRST CHILD ALLOWANCE FOR ONE-PARENT FAMILIES

'(1) There shall be included among the basic scheme benefits specified in section 9(1) of the Social Security Act 1973 the following additional benefit, namely an allowance, payable without regard to contributions, to be paid to the parent of every only, elder or eldest child in a one-parent family at the rate of £1·50 a week.

(2) An allowance shall not be paid under this section to the parent of any child in respect of whom any other allowance is being paid under Part I of the Social Security Act 1973'.—[Sir B. Rhys Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 27 [Clause 13], after '7', insert:
'and (First child allowance for one-parent families)'.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: The clause is an attempt on my part to give effect, in a very small way and as a humble beginning, to the recommendations of the Finer Report. It also gives the Government an opportunity—they have been provided with rather a lot of opportunities lately, which they have not taken—of expressing their views on family endowment and the introduction of family allowances for the first child. I think that hon. Members on both sides will agree that I have selected families most in need of help through family allowances for the first child. I trust that I shall be thought to have made a useful recommendation.
I realise that some colleagues on both sides of the House may say that the

clause is defective. I should be the first to acknowledge that, because it does not go far enough, but I wanted to put forward on Report something which would not be regarded as introducing a large new point which had not been considered in Committee—something which followed on from the debates there and which would be acceptable as a Report stage new clause. The clause may be defective in other ways, which the Minister will no doubt relish pointing out.
This is a back-bench motion, which gives hon. Members an opportunity to express their views. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) present. The House will listen to her with respect on this subject, as it is beginning to listen to her with respect on all subjects.
The Finer Report estimates that there are 400,000 fatherless families, no fewer than half of which are receiving supplementary benefit, and 100,000 motherless families, of which 10,000 are receiving supplementary benefit. Therefore, the House may conclude that those potentially able to benefit from the clause number about 500,000 children.
The Government might consider this an opportunity to make a start with the introduction of the family allowance for the first child. Although they amount to a great deal of problems, a total of 500,000 cases are not too many, in terms of expense. We understand, from an answer only yesterday, that the net cost of the benefit would be £11 million per year—£21 million before tax. I wonder whether that answer took note of the disregard. I have not tried to make the allowance a disregard for supplementary benefit, because I wanted to make only a small beginning. The benefit is obviously liable to tax for those who are earning, so it does not confer very much on them, but it is a beginning. For those on supplementary benefit it will give only the self-respect of having part of their income as of right. But this small step is worth taking, and the time is right.
The clause may be said to be a test of the Government's good faith in their declarations of general support for the Finer Committee's recommendations and as to their intention to introduce family allowances for the first child.
We had another interesting and illuminating reply from the Secretary of State yesterday. She said:
The question of additional financial support for one parent families generally must be considered in relation to the child benefit scheme, details of which will be announced in due course."—[Official Report, 28th January 1975; Vol. 885, c. 80.]
Hon. Members who are interested in the subject are beginning to wonder what "in due course" means. Immediately after the General Election, in February, the Secretary of State announced with great enthusiasm that she was abandoning the Conservative tax credit scheme. We were then led to expect that something was ready to take its place immediately and that an announcement would soon be made. Months dragged by and nothing happened. Children who might have benefited are getting older. The problems remain, and, with the rapidly rising cost of living—in spite of the Government's lavish expenditure on food subsidies—they are becoming worse every month. Yet, month after month, there is fencing, dodging and prevarication on the issue. No answers are given in the House on this important subject. We are becoming exasperated with the Secretary of State's dilly-dallying over the question of benefits for families.
This small measure is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to show what her intentions are. Let the House now hear what is the Government's timetable for child endowment. What are Socialist priorities where mothers and children are concerned? Do Labour Members really care about mothers and children? If they do, they will have the opportunity to show it with their votes this afternoon.
Does the Labour Party put the rescue of our one-parent families high on its list of priorities? When will the Government act? If they do not like my drafting, they will have the opportunity to correct the clause in another place, but let the Minister make a binding commitment today to accept the spirit of my clause and to do something about it.

Mrs. Helene Hayman: It comes as something of a disappointment that we should have to be debating, as a measure of aid to one-parent families, something as narrow as the provision of family allowances for

the first child. Many of us would have hoped to see a family endowment plan, and a family allowance scheme for all first children, introduced a lot sooner than appears to be the case.
We are all getting impatient about the date for the introduction of family allowances for the first child. One reservation about putting forward the view that we should have a family allowance for the first child of one-parent families might be that it would be used as an excuse for deferring family allowances for all first children even further. We know of the poverty of one-parent families and we also know of the problem of family poverty generally. There is a desperate need for family allowances for the first child.
It is also a disappointment that the greatest measure of financial aid for one-parent families, arising out of the long deliberations of the Finer Committee, should be merely a family allowance for the first child. There is a danger in the amendment as it is drafted. There is the great irony that family allowances for those depending on supplementary benefit—I refer to half the fatherless families in the country—are at the moment counted as income in the reckoning of supplementary benefit. The mothers of the families with whom we are most concerned, namely, those who are officially put on the poverty line, would pick up an additional family allowance at the post office and would find themselves paying it back when they went to the local supplementary benefits commission office.
I urge the Government, in their consideration of this matter—I welcome this measure as a start, small and disappointing though it is—to ensure that it is designed to help the 50 per cent. of fatherless families and the 10 per cent. of motherless families who are dependent on supplementary benefit. I ask the Government to ensure that family allowance is not counted as income for the purpose of reckoning supplementary benefit entitlement.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) indicated both concern and compassion. Her remarks were consistent with her known views on family allowances in general and family allowance to the first child in


particular. I thought that the tone of her speech was in sharp contrast to the snide remarks of the Minister of State. The right hon. Gentleman could not wait even to get to his speech—I assume that he will address us on the new clause—before playing party politics with the whole matter of family allowances by reminding Conservative Members of the failure of the previous Conservative Government to improve the family allowance situation. If it gives him any comfort, let me say that there were many occasions on which I chided my own Government in that direction.
5.15 p.m.
The speech which I shall make on the new clause, limited as the purpose of the new clause undoubtedly is, will, I hope, be consistent with speeches which I have made on a broader front over the past four or five years. I start by recognising that on family allowance provision we have relatively little to boast about. If we look at the family allowance provision of our fellow members of the EEC we find that we are fairly low down the list. It seems that our generosity has not been outstanding. I think that I am correct in saying that we are one of the few countries in the EEC which do not provide family allowances for the first child.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: We are the only one.

Mr. McCrindle: I am reminded that we are the only country that does not pay family allowance to the first child. That is an indictment upon Governments of both political parties. They have had the opportunity to expand the scheme over many years. No doubt we have had financial crises that have come and gone. No doubt it is always possible to raise the existence of a financial crisis as a reason for delay. The fact is that we have been considerably remiss in not turning our attention to improving family allowance provision over the past years.
There is a major Government responsibility to respond generously to the new clause. I think that the present Government have a special responsibility because on taking office in February last year they indicated their opposition to the tax credit system that was proposed by the previous Conservative Government. That was a system which, in the view of most of

my right hon. and hon. Friends, would have taken care of a large part of the problem that we are now considering almost a year later.
Not only that—the Government have poured scorn on the family income supplement system. I am the first to concede that the family income supplement arrangement has major defects, but the fact is that it was intended as a partial contribution to help to remove family poverty. The Government having poured scorn on the family income supplement system must be expected to react in a favourable way to the proposition now before us. They have virtually rejected the recommendations of the Finer Committee. Their actions are in sharp contrast to the statements made by Labour Members when in Opposition. They come as disappointing to many of my hon. Friends who had hoped for better things on the arrival of the present Government in February of last year.
The Government have said that their approach to family poverty is all tied up in the family endowment scheme. I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield. The Government's approach sounds fine, and it may be a great breakthrough which can be supported by both sides of the House, but as time goes by we become wary and not a little suspicious of exactly what the approach contains. We are moving towards a feeling that the Government's thinking on these matters is not half as far forward as the Secretary of State has suggested in recent weeks.
In the present economic circumstances it can easily be said—I suspect that the Government will say so—that this is the wrong time to move into additional expenditure of a sizeable order. It is for that reason that my hon. Friend has pitched his proposal in a modest fashion. We are not proposing that the family allowance should be extended to the first child, although there is a strong argument that that should be done. We are saying that it should move into the area in which family poverty bites hardest—namely, one-parent families.
It is incumbent upon the House, if resources are as limited as we are led to believe, to turn our attention to assisting in particular those women who are


trying to earn a living while bringing up a child on their own. There is a need for some help to be directed to them. I remind the House that we are now in Women's International Year. It seems that if we are to make any contribution within the relatively narrow confines of the Bill we should assist those women who, by their own efforts, are trying to maintain under difficult circumstances a reasonable standard of living for their child or children, they having been left for one reason or another to do so on their own.
I believe that the pressure is now on the one-parent families. I cannot but contrast the Government's approach to them with the provision of food subsidies. It seems that we have an almost open-ended commitment to food subsidies. Surely even the Government will concede that such a large amount of money spread over such a large number of people brings very small help to each individual or family. There would be a very small additional provision under the Bill if the clause were to be accepted by the Government. It would direct assistance where it is greatly needed. Although the relatively modest amount referred to in the new clause may seem to indicate hardly any improvement in the family situation, I believe that in the circumstances in which the people to whom we are referring find themselves it would be of major assistance.
I ask the Government once again to try to cast aside the temptation to play party politics on this matter and turn instead to a recognition that this is a modest proposal, directed to a particularly hard-pressed section of the community. On that basis, I hope that it will be supported not only by the Opposition but by Government Members.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I support new Clause 2 as strongly as I can. I believe that there is deep concern on both sides of the House for one-parent families. I have to be careful not to broaden the debate into the general terms of the Finer Report, but the fact remains that the clause would deal, even if inadequately and on a modest basis, with at least part of one of the most important recommendations of the report.
It is true that the clause is narrow, and

would have only a limited effect, but I believe that it would be a step, though not a big one, in the right direction. We all know of the exceptional problems faced by one-parent families. I had the opportunity to meet a group of these parents recently in my constituency, and was immensely impressed by their determination and courage. What emerged time and again was that the vast majority of them wanted to work but were penalised if they did so. Clearly, therefore, it is much easier for some of them to give up work and to rely entirely upon the benefits supplied by the State. Yet the great majority of single parents want to avoid that. They need encouragement and some help, however. They want to continue to work and earn money for themselves and their children, whom they are bringing up under immensely difficult conditions.
If we do not encourage such determination we shall place an even greater burden on the Exchequer than if we decide to accept the clause, with its modest expenditure of, perhaps, between £10 million and £14 million. Individual parents bringing up children face many problems—indeed, so many that one could talk about them and their financial circumstances for a long time—but a fixed cash allowance could help by playing a part in alleviating their difficulties. They have little enough room for manoeuvre in their financial incomes. They need help quickly. In the absence of action on the Finer Report, in a wider sense, let us at least take a little action today and give them the help they need very quickly.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I support the new clause. One aspect of the problem of one-parent families that I have seen at fairly close quarters is the increasing number of younger mothers, resulting, where marriage breaks down, in younger single parents, caring at an early age for a child. That is all right when the departed husband pays the maintenance allotted by the courts, but in many cases there are months when the husband pays and months when he does not, and to all intents and purposes the family eventually becomes a one-parent family, with perhaps only the one child—the sort we are talking about in this debate.
Under Governments of both parties, we have been very slack in the provision of family allowances. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) that we are the only EEC country which does not have an allowance for the first child in the family. We have also been very slack in other ways, in the provision of benefits to such people, who are struggling to bring up their families in the orderly and right manner that we would all consider to be best for the child.
It is often the single parent, fighting alone on whom the excessive expense of the care of the first child falls. Every father in this House must surely recall the number of occasions when his wife has asked him for money for the first child because there was nothing to pass down from older children.
The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman)—although she, too, does not like the prospect that, if we accept the clause, the money will be collected at one pigeonhole and taken back from another—rightly says that the clause would be a first step to sorting out the situation, which is anomalous and unfair, and a disincentive, particularly to young women to do the right thing by their families.
Over the last few months, I have been talking to some members of Gingerbread throughout the country. They were very disappointed that the Bill as presented last November contained no move to bring forward family allowances for the first child, particularly for one-parent families, among which poverty is so common. They were fobbed off with the news that there would be the child endowment plan. At every questioning, they are told that it is on the way. I shall welcome the announcement of the plan when it comes, but until that day I should like to know what the Ministers are doing, because they seem to be taking a very long while to produce it, having talked about it since the days when we were giving evidence to the Finer Committee. I have heard many hon. Members on the Government side talking about the matter in private over the years, and they never expressed any doubt that this was the direction in which they would move once they saw that the excellent

tax credit scheme introduced by the Conservative Government was to be abandoned.
I am not prepared to see child poverty as a result of the continuation of the situation in which there is no family allowance for the first child. I think that we are united, regardless of the Government Whips, in our commendation of the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) mentioned encouraging young women with children to go back to work, to do something for themselves. I know a number of women who would like to continue their studies but cannot do so because they have a child. There is no child allowance for them. These girls do not wish to continue to be a drain on State funds, which would be better given to those who are unable to earn their own living and support their families.
In this topsy-turvy world of health and social security, we seem yet again not to be giving to one of the most deserving groups the priority that is required. The new clause seeks to give priority to the hardest hit by giving a family allowance for the first child to the one-parent family. I shall be firm in my support for it now, and hereafter in the endeavour to extend its benefit.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: It is a source of regret to me that we have to discuss the question of assisting one-parent families by means of a clause moved by a member of the Opposition. It seems that there was every opportunity over recent years, when the Opposition were in government, for them to have taken steps to legislate and provide for one-parent families, particularly on the subject of family allowances. However, I hope that the Government Front Bench will not reply to the debate in those terms but will acknowledge that although there has been a default on the part of the Opposition there is a responsibility on the Government.
In common with many others, during two elections in 1974 I made it plain that the Government would differ from the previous Conservative Government in that they would attend to priorities of this description. There is in the social


services sphere, and in various other areas, a demand for Government assistance which the Government would argue they are attempting to place into a list of priorities set against a background of scarce resources. I am far from satisfied with the performance of the Government in this area over recent months.
It is a deplorable state of affairs when literally hundreds of millions of pounds can be found for certain Government projects, particularly in defence, yet we are worried about finding small sums of money to assist families in difficulties. The Minister will have to talk hard today to convince me that I should not go into the Lobby in support of this clause, because in my view it represents a needy contribution to those who need it now.

Sir George Young: I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) will stick to his guns and press the clause to a Division. So far we have had several speeches from both sides of the House with not one hon. Member dissenting from what my hon. Friend proposes. Nearly all hon. Members are committed to extending family allowances to the first child. It was in the manifestos of the two principal parties. The only way we have of trying to fulfil that commitment is to vote for my hon. Friend's clause. In the absence of the child benefit Bill, which we have been promised and which is long awaited, there is no other possibility open to those who wish to honour that commitment.
As I understand it, the Government's policy is to abolish family allowances and child tax allowances and to substitute child benefits. We have been promised a Bill for some months now which will do this. I tabled a Question yesterday which was replied to by the Secretary of State for Social Services, who was unable to give me a firm date for the publication of the Bill. I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to tell us when the Bill is to be published and when it will be implemented. Without that information we are in some difficulty in honouring the commitment given to the electorate.
In Committee we asked time and again what was holding up the Bill. The

Labour Party rejected the Tory Party's tax credit scheme some time before the last election. It has had ample time to think out the problems. The Government have been in office for nearly a year with the full benefit and resources of the Civil Service. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the implementation of the scheme is dependent on the construction of buildings in Washington. Can he shed some light on the rumour that those buildings have been affected by the concern over high alumina cement, which has held up completion of public buildings in other parts of the country? I hope that the Minister will be able to take us into his confidence on this.
Or is it that the hard-faced men at the Treasury have told the Minister that the Bill cannot be implemented on the date which I understand is suggested, 1st April 1976? If it is to be deferred to 1978 or 1979, what will happen to the first children of families in the meantime? Is it proposed to delay the fulfilment of that commitment for four or five years? Is it the problem of identification which is delaying the legislation? It seems that the Government envisage some scheme rather like Herod seeking out the firstborn before they can implement their plans. It is not the case that it will be so difficult to identify the children who would be entitled to the allowance.
My hon. Friend's clause would cost about £11 million. If we contrast that with the hundreds of millions of pounds that we shall be considering tomorrow, in connection with food subsidies, I suggest that there is a case for taking the £11 million from the sum involved there and allocating it instead to this Bill.
I trust that this debate will flush the Minister out from the undergrowth where he has been hiding for so long. I hope that it will make him give us some answers. We have been asking questions for month after month about the child benefit Bill but have received no satisfaction. In the absence of any satisfactory reply I hope that the Government Whips will allow Labour Ministers to vote according to their consciences and that they will vote in favour of the clause and defeat the Government.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: This clause is covered by Labour party policy. It is our policy to introduce legislation


to provide child allowances for the first child. I find it regrettable that the Government have not taken this opportunity to introduce new legislation providing an allowance for the first child for the first time in the history of this country. We will do all in our power to influence the Government to do something about this before the Bill completes all its stages.
I compliment my hon. Friends and Conservative Members who have met members of the Gingerbread Group, whom I had the honour of meeting last Saturday morning in my constituency when we discussed the group's plans. What attracted my attention to the efforts of the members of this group most of all was their desire to work for their families. They have a big programme before them. They are meeting welfare officers of local authorities and want to meet Government Ministers to discuss plans for the proper provision of child care during the working month and school holidays, so that mothers and fathers—because there are fathers who form single-parent families—can work for these families. At the meeting I had on Saturday I spoke to men who were part of single-parent families and, who had been left in circumstances similar to some mothers.

Mr. Bowden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when a single-parent family involves a member of our sex, even more difficult problems are involved, sometimes, because it is hard for a man to adjust, particularly if he has been in full-time employment. He no longer has a wife, who is a vital part of the household. He has to adjust to the difficult job of running a home, which is a highly skilled and specialised operation. For a man to have to do this raises big problems, and finance is the first one.

Mr. Spriggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I realise he is trying to be helpful. However, in single-parent families the problem is just as difficult for women. They are expected to keep homes open and provide for their child or children. They must shop in the same place as other people. It is their desire to do what men are normally expected to do, namely to work to give their families a reasonable standard of life.
These people want to help provide premises and the specially trained staff to

look after their children while they are at work. During the school holidays they want to feel that they can trust the people who have charge of their children. The provision of buildings will be costly. I was pleased to hear the men and women of the Gingerbread Group saying that they understood the difficulties of local authorities and Government. They want to help pay for the provision of vital necessities. Hon. Members have put a watertight case to the Government. I appeal to the Minister to promise us that before the Bill reaches its final stages the Government will act to help the single-parent family.

Mr. David Price: I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will find the plea of his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) irresistible. I certainly do. I speak in support of the new clause.
Whatever be the arguments for or against the family allowance system—and there are alternatives—I can see no argument in favour of excluding the first child. Many of us know from personal experience that proportionately the first child usually costs more than the second. Certainly it does not cost less. The evidence is that the change of life-style comes when the first child arrives. Many childless couples have one life-style, but as soon as the first child arrives it changes.
I am sorry that it has taken so long for the major political parties to agree that we should include the first child in this allowance. I was therefore as disappointed as any hon. Member that in the Bill the Government continued to exclude the first child. [AN HON. MEMBER: "So did the Conservative Government."] I accept that, but with this difference: the Conservative Government proposed the introduction of a totally new system, the tax credit system, which would have incorporated in the tax credit methods for dealing with the narrower problem which the new clause attempts to tackle and the wider problem of the first child.
Whatever party differences we on the Select Committee had about the merit of the tax credit system, there was unanimous agreement that a family allowance, or a tax credit, whichever it might be, should be extended to the first


child. Those who did not agree with the concept of the tax credit system were at one with us in believing that the first child should receive a family allowance or a tax credit. It is interesting to observe that the Secretary of State was an active and agreeable member of that Select Committee. It is therefore disappointing that she has not felt able to introduce this agreed measure in the Bill.
The effect of inflation on family income, especially on those who are less well off, identifies the problems of the one-parent family. The House will forgive me for quoting figures given in a circular from the Child Poverty Action Group. They show that in 1968 the difference in average weekly expenditure between a childless couple and a couple with one child was £4·60 a week. Today the comparable figure is £7·60. It is worth observing that, according to the same source, one-third of all poor families are one-child families.
It is against that background that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has moved his fairly narrow new clause which proposes the introduction of a family allowance for the "only, elder or eldest child" in one-parent families. I should have thought that the case was irresistible. I realise that it may take time for the Government to digest the proposals of the Finer Committee. They were published only in July last year, though no doubt the Government may have had an idea earlier about the way in which the Committee's thoughts were moving.
5.45 p.m.
We are soon to have a referendum on the EEC. Whether one is for or against our membership of the EEC, we can applaud the fact that all other Governments of the members of the Community pay a family allowance for the first child. I hope the Under-Secretary of State, with his normal Welsh charm, will accept the new clause. I have no doubt that his departmental brief refers to the administrative difficulties of identifying one-parent families and the problems which officers of his Department might encounter. He could overcome all the administrative difficulties by asking my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington to withdraw the clause and promising to

introduce in another place a wider clause, having proposed yet another money resolution, extending the family allowance for all first children. I give the hon. Gentleman the easy way out. If he does that, our happiness for today will be complete.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have some sympathy with the Under-Secretary of State in having to reply to this debate, because I am sure that it was thought in the Department that this was a small uprating Bill which would be wholly non-controversial, which would take a few sittings and which would, with a little good will on all sides, pass into law without difficulty. However, the hon. Gentleman has taken a terrible buffeting and has been defeated on this and that and has had pressure put upon him.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) on seizing the opportunity, despite the money resolution, to press the Government on this important matter of a family allowance for the eldest child in one-parent families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) has pointed out, there is all-party agreement on this issue. When we were in office we prepared the tax credit scheme, which was our method of meeting our objective. A Select Committee had considered the matter and clearly it was ready for legislation.
The Labour Government did not like our method, but in their manifesto they committed themselves to the child family endowment scheme. There was vague talk about a child benefit Bill coming before the House. The Government committed themselves to introducing an allowance for the eldest child, particularly in one-parent families. I understand that not only is it a Labour Party manifesto commitment but that it is an element in the Government's policy for the social contract. One of the Government's obligations under the social contract is to do something about family allowances for the first child.
I welcome the pressure which Government Members have put on the Government to give substance to our aim, which is a family allowance for the eldest child. We are appreciative of their efforts to get something out of the Minister. But they must take one point on board. We


are getting nothing out of the Government on the child benefit Bill. It is my firm belief that the Cabinet, as opposed to back-bench Members on the Government side, has resolved to postpone the family endowment scheme. If hon. Members opposite want to maintain the pressure, they will have to realise that the Government have let them down and that the date April 1976, when we were expecting family alowances for the first child to be introduced, will not be realised.
It is time that we had an explanation from the Minister why that has been done. As usual, everybody except the House of Commons knows that the scheme has been postponed. Certainly people who read the specialised Press know it. The Cabinet has resolved to postpone the family endowment scheme and a sub-committee of the Cabinet called the Anti-Poverty Group—which no doubt proposes the expenditure of large sums of money on indiscriminate food subsidies and other measures to combat poverty—is deciding the Government's political stance to defend the decision to postpone the scheme.
The matter is best described in the New Society article by Paul Harrison, which appeared on 2nd January 1975, in which he describes the Government's dilemma and the decision that has been taken to postpone the scheme. The Minister must, first, admit that that decision has been taken and, secondly, tell us why it has been done and give an explanation of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) touched on doubts about office accommodation. We want to know what is going on at Washington in county Durham and whether there are difficulties there which have helped to delay the scheme. I believe that what has happened is that the Treasury will not give the money.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), said that large sums of money were being spent and that it was time that this small expenditure of £11 million—which was given in an answer to me yesterday—should be made. I ask the hon. Member for Preston, South whether, if his Minister refuses to allow that expenditure, he will vote tomorrow on the Prices Bill to give the Government

authority to spend an extra £1,000 million on indiscriminate food subsidies over the next few months, authorised no doubt by the Cabinet anti-poverty subcommittee. if the hon. Gentleman votes for that £1,000 million tomorrow and resists today an expenditure of £11 million on this worthwhile cause, I hope that he will have a guilty conscience.
The Department has been considering the clause and I trust that the Minister, in face of the pressure to which he has been subjected, will make a sympathetic response to its limited aims. The New Society article reads as follows:
The Department of Health and Social Security was naturally concerned about the decision in Cabinet to postpone the family endowment scheme. The Department's view, it is understood, was that it would even be politically impossible to announce the postponement without offering some kind of sop, at least to protect the most vulnerable families. It proposed the extension of the existing family allowance of £1·50 to the first child of single-parent families—a move that would also, neatly, offer interim action on the Finer Committee's recommendations.
It is not my hon. Friend's fault. He would like to propose that the family allowance should cover the eldest child but in view of the money resolution, he is able to move this limited step forward. The sop referred to in the article is before the House and it has some inevitable limitations. The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) spoke about the supplementary benefit disregard which will mean that the hardest hit families will not get much relief.
If the scheme is limited to one-parent families I assume that a cohabitation rule will have to be introduced for yet another benefit to sort out which are genuine one-parent families. Those technicalities need not stop us looking carefully at this scheme, which is a serious step forward and the very least that the Government should contemplate if they are to get something in their timetable by April 1976. We wish it to go further, and we want news of the child benefit Bill.
If the Minister contradicts what I said about the decision to postpone, no one will be more delighted than I. We all look forward to his trying to knock down what we have said about the decision to postpone and telling us that the family endowment scheme will come in by 1976. If he does not, the people covered by


the amendment will be affected, as will be large families with two parents. Large families of low-wage-earners are a key poverty group which will be particularly affected. That group would be helped by the granting of a family allowance for the first child. We would prefer the tax credit system, but we shall not allow the Government to get away with saying nothing. I see that there are a few Labour backbenchers who also are not prepared to allow the Government to get away with it.
If the Government postpone family allowances for all first children the Conservative Government's family income supplement becomes an important matter. We introduced it in response to our commitments to do something about family poverty. It was intended to be a temporary expedient before the tax credit system was introduced. If the family endowment scheme is postponed, the temporary expedient must be made to last longer.
We believe that the Government are not making full use of the FIS scheme because they are resentful of its Conservative authorship and they attacked it too strenuously in Opposition. They are seriously cutting down expenditure on advertising the availability of the FIS scheme so that the take-up has dropped. I understand that expenditure on advertising in 1971 was £310,000; in 1972, £325,000; in 1973, £161,000, and in 1974, £124,000. Experience in Government will surely tell the Minister that a national advertising campaign costing less than £150,000 is not worth doing. The Government are not advertising the availability of the scheme, and the number of people who are claiming FIS and benefiting from it has dropped from the first years.
I have tried to avoid too partisan an approach, but we shall not watch the Government dragging their feet on the endowment scheme, attempting to discredit FIS by ceasing to advertise its availability and continuing to make the party points they made in 1972 and 1973 about the low take-up of FIS and its inadequacy. We accept it as an expedient, but we should like to see a tax credit scheme. The House wants something to be done. We do not want the Government to say that in due course the Secre-

tary of State will make a statement. A decision has been taken about a statement which should have been made. The decision to postpone the scheme is extremely unfortunate and the Minister should face the House frankly and put us in the picture. He should tell us why he is failing to keep an electoral commitment which, I understand from Labour supporters, is an important part of the social contract.

Mr. Alec Jones: I might have been tempted at the beginning to think that this "little uprating Bill", as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) described it, would go through easily. If that was my view at the beginning, experience has shown otherwise. One can see that the hon. Gentleman has benefited from his experience in the Opposition Whips' Office. Not only is he whipping his own supporters but he is doing his best to whip mine into the Conservative Lobby. I trust that my hon. Friends will be aware of the seductive practices of the hon. Gentleman in that respect.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) suggested that I might try to use Welsh charm on the House, if there be such a thing. I say to him that the charm from Eastleigh is infinitely more flattering.
There is considerable importance in the subject we have been discussing. I am always pleased to follow the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) when he describes the specific needs of groups in our community. Both he and other hon. Gentleman have made a substantial case for special help for one-parent families.
6.0 p.m.
The clause suggests that special help could be given by extending family allowances to the first child. I shall not pursue the subject of the technical expertise or otherwise contained in the clause. What has emerged from the debate so far is that there is no fundamental difference between the two sides of the House in our desire to do something for one-parent families. Not only do we agree that there is a need for such action but we also say that if there were any differences on this aspect they would be difficult for anybody to justify after publication of the Finer Report.
All who have contributed to the debate have emphasised the difficulties which face a single parent, whether male or female, in seeking alone to bring up a child or children. Obviously those people face special problems of a nature and scale not met by married couples. The problem is to decide how we are to give help and what that help should be.
The hon. Member for Kensington said that the acceptance or otherwise of the clause would be a test of the Government's good faith. I prefer the hon. Gentleman when he concentrates on the needs of people rather than when he seeks to make party political points. The House is at its best when hon. Members resist that temptation. If, however, party political points are made on one side, they have to be answered on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) spoke of the failures of the Conservative Government in respect of family allowances, and I can only say that confession is particularly good for the souls of Conservative Members.
The needs of one-parent families and the need to extend family allowances did not suddenly arise last February. They were present in the period from 1970, when we were assured by the then Conservative Government that our economy was so sound that money could be allocated to relieve the lot of the better off. If the Conservatives were really concerned about one-parent families, that was the time when they could have done something about the situation.
It is untrue to suggest that we have done nothing for one-parent families. The uprating which we are now discussing has given substantial help to half the number of one-parent families. Indeed, a total of 350,000 out of 600.000 receive national insurance benefit, such as allowances for widowed mothers, or supplementary benefit, and one-parent families will be measurably better off as a result of the consequences of uprating. There has been other help, but this does not diminish the importance of the improvements enjoyed by one-parent families inherent in the uprating and in other aspects of Government policy—particularly in regard to food subsidies, which have been attacked today by Conserva-

tives. I emphasise that there are other ways, apart from uprating, in which one-parent families have been helped. I concede that they may be small, but they are important to the individuals concerned.
The earnings disregard which we are now introducing means that 13,000 heads of one-parent families with earnings of more than £4 a week will, as a result of our alteration in earnings disregard, receive the equivalent of a £2 a week increase in their scale rates. Another 12,000 whose earnings have been restricted will now have the opportunity to earn extra without restriction in terms of disregard.

Sir George Young: The Minister said that such people will now have the opportunity to do certain things. Does that mean that the new disregards are coming into effect as of now? If not, can he give the date when they will come into effect?

Mr. Jones: We have gone through all this. The date of implementation of disregards will be announced to the House. When I say "now" I am talking of when the disregards are brought into operation. Later this evening, or even in the early hours of tomorrow morning, we shall discuss Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 which are close to the heart of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, and—who knows?—depending on the decision of the House further relief may be provided for one-parent families in regard to children's earnings.
In addition, the Supplementary Benefits Commission has taken certain action which has been called for by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The lone father who stays at home to look after his family no longer needs to register for work as a condition of receiving supplementary benefit. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) made particular reference to lone fathers. It is as well to remember that those people no longer need to register. That decision can affect 100,000 lone fathers.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) drew our attention to the special problem of the young unmarried mother. The fact that the Supplementary Benefits Commission decided that the young mother between 16 and 18 will now


receive the full adult scale, even though she may not be a householder—in other words, she might be living with her parents—again will be of some help.
I do not suggest that the steps I have outlined are massive or are enough or are substitutes. I am using them to indicate that it is not true to say that we have done nothing in this respect. Far from it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clearly said in her statement on 13th November:
The Government are committed to extend the family allowance to the first child under their child allowance scheme, and I shall be making a statement on the timing and other details of the scheme in due course."—[Official Report, 13th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 418.]
That commitment stands and fulfils an election promise which was contained in our election manifesto, and it implements one of the major recommendations of the Finer Report.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Minister is now getting down to the reality of the debate. Will he give an answer "Yes" or "No" to the question whether a decision has been taken to postpone the family endowment scheme? It is no good saying that there will be a statement in due course. All this delay in the matter of a statement means that the Government lack the courage to face the House, and perhaps their own supporters, in confessing that they have postponed the scheme.

Mr. Jones: For an Opposition Member to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State lacks courage is a monstrous perversion of the truth, as those who know my right hon. Friend are well aware. Whatever one may say about my right hon. Friend, I do not think anybody in the House would suggest that she lacks courage. What she indicated in that statement was our firm commitment, as I repeat today, to extend the family allowance to the first child under the child benefit scheme. That is a commitment and fulfils our election promise. The child benefit scheme will amalgamate existing family allowances and child tax allowances. It will be payable for all children including the first and will be payable to the mother—a point on which we had serious differences and difficulties some time ago.

Mrs. Chalker: The Under-Secretary has failed to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Is it true that a decision has been taken to postpone that Bill? If it has not been taken, may we be told whether in the next six, nine, 12 or 18 months we can expect the announcement?

Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated time and time again, and I repeat, that when she is ready she will make a statement to the House giving the full details of the nature of the scheme and the date of implementation.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe referred to rumour and speculation. He will not expect me to comment on that. If I were to take up a great deal of time commenting on all the Press speculation, it might make for an exciting debate but it would not add very much to our knowledge. Any comments I might make might be as useful as attempting to answer the question whether I had yet stopped beating my wife. If I were tempted to make comments on Press speculation, I might make comments upon the election which is shortly to take place affecting certain Opposition Members.
The principal accusation seems to be that the present Government are slow in implementing their proposals. I should like to deal with that. I understand the natural desire of hon. Members to proceed as quickly as possible with this type of improvement. We have to look at the matter against the background that since February 1974, when this Government first came to office, we have embarked upon two major upratings, expending the sum of £2,500 million. Indeed, some of the criticisms of the uprating Bill make me think that, far from increasing the benefits, we are reducing them.
We are also introducing the new benefits of the non-contributory invalidity pension and the invalid care allowance. We are improving benefits which were long neglected by the Conservative Party. Later in the day we shall debate the earnings rule. Last July we increased the earnings rule from £9·50 to £13. Family allowances are being increased to £1·50. It is the Labour Government who are improving the disregards of earnings and capital. When the Opposition say that the Government are slow in one sphere,


I look across the whole board of social security provisions in judging the speed or otherwise of this Government—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is the Minister aware that the report of his speech will indicate that he spent the first 10 minutes or quarter of an hour talking about every benefit under the sun other than that which might have had some effect on one-parent families? Now, after comments taking up two paragraphs at most, he is launching into the peroration of his speech, which I am not surprised to find is dealing with the family endowment scheme.
Will not the hon. Gentleman answer one question about the position at Washington, about the possible date of implementation, what has been decided and what will happen?
He does not have to answer Press speculation. But if he avoids answering any questions he confirms by his attitude every word of the allegations made against his Government by the Opposition.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense on that aspect. The main burden of the case made by the Opposition is that we have been unnecessarily slow. That is what I am attempting to put into perspective. I have indicated the improvements we have carried out in social security since the Government came to office in February 1974. I am sure that, if the Opposition had had a similarly good record in a comparable period, they might have been in a better position to face the electorate in February last year.
6.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe and many of his hon. Friends made great play with the fact that, if we had implemented the Conservative tax credit scheme, everything in the garden would have been lovely. The 1972 Green Paper on tax credits said that if Parliament approved the scheme on these lines it would take about five years to get it working. If that is so, I do not see how either the hon. Member for Rushcliffe or the hon. Lady the Member for Wallasey can suggest otherwise.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: No. The hon. Lady has only just arrived, and I shall, therefore not give way. If any hon. Member suggests that we can discuss a tax credit scheme in October 1972 with an inbuilt five-year delay which can solve problems in 1975—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: No. I have already given way to a number of Members on both sides, as is my usual custom. If the hon. Lady had been here earlier, I would have been more inclined to do the same for her.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I was delayed by British Rail.

Mr. Jones: The delay was not caused by me.
The matter was dealt with not only in the 1972 Green Paper. The October manifesto of the Conservatives stated that, as a first step towards establishing the tax credit scheme, they would introduce a system of child credits when economic circumstances allowed. However, no firm date or commitment was given by them when they faced the electorate in October. They are now suggesting that the absence of any firm date from the Government makes nonsense.
The absence of a date in the Opposisition's election manifesto makes nonsense of the suggestion that we have been tardy in setting out the details of our child allowance scheme.

Mr. Thorne: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will take note of the fact that we are not so perturbed about what the Opposition promised and failed to carry out. We are concerned with what the Labour Party said to the electorate about what it would do when it became the Government.

Mr. Jones: I assure my hon. Friend that I am naturally concerned with what is said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Were I to indicate a preference as to the side to which I would pay the greatest attention, it is what is said on this side which carries considerable weight with me.
I thought I indicated clearly that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State


had indicated in her interim statement on this scheme that we would carry out and were in the process of making arrangements to fulfil our election manifesto pledge on this matter. The Opposition said that there were no problems. References were made to Washington.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. If the family endowment scheme is as effective as we hope, why is he unable to agree to operate the scheme set out in the clause?

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am sure he will appreciate the point I want to make.
It is unrealistic for Members, on both sides, to believe that a child endowment scheme of this size can be implemented without considerable preparation and without appreciating the considerable difficulties. We are talking of taking on 3 million singleton children. We say that, even before we can entertain claims from these children, we are talking of major computing programme difficulties, major printing programmes, housing difficulties and staffing problems. I do not suggest that any one of those problems is the cause of delay. But it would be folly for us to start out on a scheme of this nature without ensuring that all those problems were first solved. It is the total of these problems which is one factor influencing my right hon. Friend in making a firmly-dated decision on this matter.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Kensington that I am not attacking the principle of providing assistance for one-parent families any more than I am specifically attacking the proposal in the clause. As those minor matters to which I referred clearly show, we as a Government are looking at ways of providing for one-parent families. We want to give help to them as soon as possible. We believe that help can best be provided as part of a co-ordinated plan. When the details of that co-ordinated plan are finalised, with a definite date, my right hon. Friend will make a statement.
As a Government and as a party, we are deeply concerned with the plight of the one-parent family. We accept our responsibilities as a Government. We

accept the responsibilities laid down in the manifestos, upon which my right hon. and hon. Friends fought the last two elections. We have already taken steps to ease the plight of one-parent families. The next big step forward must be the introduction of a child benefit scheme. We are not yet ready to make an announcement on this. In the meantime I must ask the House to resist the temptation to ask me to jump the gun by accepting the specific proposals in the clause.
No one denies the need. We are as anxious as anyone to find means of helping one-parent families. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend makes her announcement hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that our proposals will meet that need.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Right hon. and hon. Members are anxious to move to a vote, so I shall not detain the House very long.
I thank the Minister for going as far as he has. In fact he went wide on the question of child benefits but, in the end, did not say anything. He did not analyse my clause in detail, and I am grateful for that because I do not think that it would have stood up to the analysis that he might have brought to it if he had wished to be destructive. He was not destructive, because he knows in his heart that it is necessary and that it should come. The Minister has had a difficult job, because he has had to defend his Department for a decision taken outside it, but the Government have decided not to go ahead with the child endowment scheme, and that is painfully clear.
That being so, why cannot we have a Green Paper about it? The Secretary of State has made much of the difficulties. Very well. Let us discuss them. Let public concern be expressed. Why cannot we have a statement of Government policy, even if the implementation cannot be carried through at once? If the Government cannot implement the reform at once, why not take us into their confidence about their plans, instead of simply resisting even minor amendments on the grounds that an announcement will be made in due course, though they cannot say when? The right hon. Lady feels that the legislative process in bringing in her child endowment scheme will be long


drawn out. I doubt that. We in this House are unanimous that something has to be done quickly. But if she thinks that, let her start the legislative process by introducing a Green Paper.
There was reference to the problem of finding the money. The money is there for lavish subsidies, though the food subsidies have not prevented a rise in the cost of living, as poor families know too well. Family allowances have been increased, but not as much as the increase in the cost of living since the last family allowances increase. For that reason, the Minister cannot make too much of those aspects of Government policy as a way of defending himself against the fact that the Government are not doing enough for one-parent families.
Again, the Government make much of administrative difficulties. I remind the House that, once they got down to it, the

Division No. 76.]
AYES
[6.25 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macfarlane, Neil


Aitken, Jonathan
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
MacGregor, John


Alison, Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Arnold, Tom
Goodhart, Philip
Mates, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Patrick


Banks, Robert
Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Beith, A. J.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miscampbell, Norman


Biffen, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moate, Roger


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Griffiths, Eldon
Molyneaux, James


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Grist, Ian
Monro, Hector


Bradford, Rev Robert
Grylls, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall, Sir John
Morgan, Geraint


Brotherton, Michael
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Peter (Chester)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David


Budgen, Nick
Hannam, John
Neave, Airey


Bulmer, Esmond
Hastings, Stephen
Nelson, Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Hawkins, Paul
Neubert, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Henderson, Douglas
Newton, Tony


Carson, John
Holland, Philip
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Clark. Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hooson, Emlyn
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cockcroft, John
Hordern, Peter
Pardoe, John


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parkinson, Cecil


Cope, John
Hurd, Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Penhaligon, David


Corrie, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crawford, Douglas
Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Crouch, David
Johnston Russell (Inverness)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reid, George


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Drayson, Burnaby
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dunlop, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Durant, Tony
Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Norman
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Emery, Peter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Tim


Eyre, Reginald
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin


Fookes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sims, Roger


Freud, Clement
MacCormick, Iain
Sinclair, Sir George


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

German Government introduced family allowance for the first child within five months.

I thank my hon. Friends for their support for my clause. I offer my special thanks to those Government supporters who have had the courage to speak out in favour of it. I hope that they will follow their voices with their votes. I trust that this House will demonstrate to the Department that something has to be done and that we are exasperated by the delay. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is present. She knows the strength of our feeling, and I believe that we can depend on her for action. I hope that I shall be proved right.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 275.

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Tebbit, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Spence, John
Temple-Morris, Peter
Walters, Dennis


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Watt, Hamish


Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wells, John


Sproat, Iain
Thompson, George
Welsh, Andrew


Stainton, Keith
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook. Ivor
Townsend, Cyril D.
Wigley, Dafydd


Stanley, John
Trotter, Neville
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Viggers, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Mrs. Lynda Chalker and


Stokes, John
Wakeham, John
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.


Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dormand, J. D.
John, Brynmor


Allaun, Frank
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Archer, Peter
Dunn, James A.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Ashley, Jack
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex
Judd, Frank


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Edelman, Maurice
Kaufman, Gerald


Atkinson, Norman
Edge, Geoff
Kelley, Richard


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kerr, Russell


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bates, Alf
English, Michael
Lambie, David


Bean, R. E.
Ennals, David
Lamborn, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lamond, James


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Evans, John (Newton)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ewing Harry (Stirling)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bishop, E. S.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boardman, H.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lipton, Marcus


Booth, Albert
Flannery, Martin
Litterick, Tom


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Loyden, Eddie


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ford, Ben
Luard, Evan


Bradley, Tom
Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Freeson, Reginald
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S.)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Buchanan, Richard
George, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Gilbert, Dr John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ginsburg, David
Madden, Max


Campbell, Ian
Golding John
Magee, Bryan


Canavan, Dennis
Gould, Bryan
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Cant, R. B.
Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Simon


Carmichael, Neil
Graham, Ted
Marks, Kenneth


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David


Cartwright, John
Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Clemitson, Ivor
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hamling, William
Meacher, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Hardy, Peter
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)


Corbett, Robin
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hatton, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Molloy, William


Crawshaw, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Moonman, Eric


Cronin, John
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cryer, Bob
Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Huckfield, Les
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Dalyell. Tarn
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Irving, Ri Hon S. (Dartford)
O'Halloran, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)
Orbach, Maurice


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Janner, Greville
Ovenden, John


Delargy, Hugh
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Owen, Dr David


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Padley, Walter


Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Park, George







Parker, John
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Parry, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pavitt, Laurie
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Perry, Ernest
Sillars, James
Ward, Michael


Phipps, Dr Colin
Silverman, Julius
Watkins, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Skinner, Dennis
Watkinson, John


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Weetch, Ken


Price, William (Rugby)
Snape, Peter
Weitzman, David


Radice, Giles
Spearing, Nigel
Wellbeloved, James


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Spriggs, Leslie
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stallard, A. W.
White, James (Pollock)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)
Whitehead, Phillip


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stott, Roger
Whitlock, William


Roderick, Caerwyn
Strang, Gavin
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rooker, J. W.
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Rose, Paul B.
Taylor, Mrs Arm (Bolton W)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Woodall, Alec


Ryman, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NE)
Woof, Robert


Sandelson, Neville
Tierney, Sydney
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sedgemore, Brian
Tinn, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Selby, Harry
Tomlinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Torney, Tom
Mr. David Stoddart and


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Mr. John Ellis


Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

RATES OF BASIC SCHEME BENEFITS

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 19, at end insert:
(b) in section 32(4)(a)(ii) for the words "either of the rates" there shall be substituted the words "the rate";'
This is a further purely technical amendment, springing from an oversight in the original drafting. It is consequential upon the repeals in Part I of Schedule 6.
The change proposed under Clause 9 produces a uniform rate of family allowance, which in turn means that the number of rates of dependency benefit in respect of children is reduced from three to two. Thus a qualifying child must be an only, an elder, an eldest or an additional child. Section 32(4)(a) of the Social Security Act 1973, which concerns increases in retirement pensions in respect of child dependants, was drafted in terms of three possible rates, with a special rate for a second child. The repeals in Part I of Schedule 6 and the amendment are necessary as a result of the disappearance of the rate for a second child.

Amendment agreed to.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 14, leave out from 'substituted' to end of line 19 and insert '£13·00;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss the following at the same time:
Government Amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment No. 5, in Clause 4, page 4, line 8, after 'addition)', insert:
'and the sums specified in sections 26(1) and 35(2) of the Social Security Act 1973'.

Mr. O'Malley: If I might run the risk briefly of being out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understand that it is your birthday. I should therefore like to wish you, on behalf, I think, of all hon. Members, many happy returns. May I go further than that, so that you will feel assured that the House has a continuing interest in your well-being? While realising that the Chair is at all times impartial, I would mention that we are about to discuss a subject which could result in a further income for you in the future of at least £10. I am sure that you will be grateful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I express my deep gratitude and say that that is the best speech I have heard the Minister make?

Mr. O'Malley: I shall try to be in order for the rest of my comments.
I do not need to tell the House that we are about to discuss the earnings rule. I suppose that that is why a large number of hon. Members are present for this debate. However, it will be helpful to look briefly at some of the background and history of this subject so that we can take a balanced view of it and put it into the broader context of overall levels of public expenditure and within the budget of the Department.
It was a Labour Government who, on coming into office at the end of February last year, immediately decided that as from 22nd July 1974, as part of one of the speediest upratings in the history of national insurance—when the levels of pensions were raised to £10 and £16—they would also relax the earnings rule. We relaxed the earnings rule from the figure which we had inherited, from £9·50 to £13, as recently as last July. One of the reasons why it was necessary to make a jump of £3·50 was that the previous Conservative Government—for reasons which I am neither defending nor attacking but am merely noting at present—found themselves unable, at a time of competing priorities, to relax the earnings rule, either in 1972 or 1973.
One has to begin, therefore, by looking at the credentials of the present Government and of the previous Conservative Government on that subject. So it was that the Bill went into Committee with the proposal to continue from April 1975 the relaxed earnings rule, at the initial rate of £13 which had been implemented by a Labour Government immediately on coming into office—after a neglect of this subject on two Budget occasions by the previous Conservative administration.
In Committee, following quite long discussions about the earnings rule, amendments were carried. So we have a Bill before us in which the earnings rule is to be relaxed, as the Bill stands, from £13 to £20 in the year following the coming into force of the Social Security Act 1973—that is, during 1975–76. In the year following that it is to be raised to £35, and in the year after that it is to be raised to £50.
There was also inserted into the Bill in Committee subsection (4) of the clause, which provides that the earnings rule

shall cease to have effect as from 5th April 1980.
I should explain that the purpose of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 is to restore the Bill to the condition is was in on this subject before it went into Committee. I want to explain why the Government propose this course now.
It has been the case from the inception of the National Insurance Scheme in 1948, as the result of the recommendations that were made in the Beveridge Report, that the pension payable to large numbers of people—to men on reaching the age of 65 and to women on reaching 60 years of age—has never been an old-age pension. It has been a retirement pension.
Successive Governments since 1948 have defended the principle of the retirement pension. The previous Conservative Government did it as recently as 1973. The present Government are the first who have not sought to defend the earnings rule on the principles on which it has been defended by successive administrations. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, from the earliest speeches we have made on this subject since coming into power, have made it clear that we were not defending the earnings rule in principle. We have made clear that we recognise, as do my hon. Friends in numbers in the Parliamentary Labour Party and as do members of the broader Labour movement, that what was acceptable in 1948 has caused anxieties, resentment and dislike by retirement pensioners who have been affected by the earnings rule. Therefore, we have not used the arguments that are traditionally used, including the arguments used by the Conservative Government of 1970–74 when there were attempts in the House to relax or get rid of the earnings rule.
The only difficulty we face as a Government and as a House of Commons with a responsibility to the nation is the question of the cost which would be incurred by implementation of the amendments made in Committee which the Government are now seeking to delete.
6.45 p.m.
To abolish the earnings rule completely, at the level of pensions which will be in force as from April of this


year, dealing with retirement pensioners alone, would cost £175 million, but the total cost would be £225 million because the dependent wives of invalidity pensioners and wives under 60 of retirement pensioners—as the Bill is currently drafted—would also be excluded from the operation of any earnings rule. Complete abolition, therefore, in April 1975 terms, would amount to £225 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) may well say to me, as he has said in Committee and on other occasions, that there will be some tax clawback from that. It is right, therefore, to say in relation to the cost of abolition, taking into account the return to the Exchequer through the tax system and on the best estimate I have, that the £225 million would be reduced to £170 million. This would mean an increase of about ½ per cent. on contributions.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House may well say "That is not very much. It is worth paying ½ per cent. on contributions." But there are some broader considerations which I ask particularly my hon. Friends to bear in mind. They are these. In September last year we published our White Paper "Better Pensions." In the near future we hope to be introducing a Bill based on the proposals contained in "Better Pensions". These proposals are, in their way, a departure as radical as anything, either before or since Beveridge, in the history of insurance in this country.
The White Paper made it clear that in order to pay for better benefits, the rate of contribution we would have to set would be at about 16½ per cent.—as opposed to the 14 per cent. which will be payable as from April 1975. It is not, therefore, only a question of ½ per cent. and that being the end of it. We, as a party and as a movement, have a scheme which has been welcomed and supported by the TUC and the whole of the Labour movement and is a manifesto commitment of the party which already will require contribution increases of 2½ per cent.

Mr. Edward Gardner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right that the Minister should be addressing the House as though this were a meeting of the Labour Party and refer-

ring to "the party"? This matter is something which interests the Opposition side of the House and the country as a whole. It should be a duty for the Minister to address the House in that spirit.

Mr. O'Malley: There are Members from the Labour Party in the House—rather more Members from the Labour Party than of the Conservative Party—and, furthermore, Members of the Labour Party whose appearances in this Chamber are rather more frequent than those of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
It is relevant not only to my hon. Friends but also to Opposition Members that the Government will be bringing forward legislation which will involve a substantial increase in the total level of contributions which will be payable by industry, by employers and by employees. It is right that we should set any contribution increases of the kind which would result from a complete abolition of the earnings rule in this broader context.
Of course, we have to have priorities and I shall deal with some of them later.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: The Minister's estimates about costs are inevitably based on assumptions. What are his assumptions about the pattern of employment for the future since this proposal is not likely to be implemented until 1980? What does he estimate will be the employment pattern in 1980? What is the estimate on which he has based his tax clawback figure?

Mr. O'Malley: I had intended to say something about that later. It is relevant, however, that in its report on the earnings rule—I am not making too much of this point but merely wish to quote the evidence—the National Insurance Advisory Committee said in January 1967 that it was
doubtful whether it is realistic to suppose that there is any adjustment to the earnings rule which in itself would lead to any substantial addition to the number of elderly people in employment"—
I stress the words "substantial addition", although the report conceded that it was
likely that increases in the limit do result in somewhat more work being done by some pensioners".
By that it meant pensioners who were already in employment.
I shall not stick at that. I concede immediately to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) that none of us can make fine judgments and fine estimates on this matter. I believe that if the earnings rule were abolished numbers of people who in present circumstances might well retire would not then retire. Even if that were the case the figure of £225 million, or £170 million taking account of tax clawback, would be a substantial one. That expenditure has to be set against other competing priorities.
I had not finished discussing the overall cost of the proposals. I dealt first with the cost of complete abolition of the rule in April 1975 terms. The House will wish to know the effect of the proposals contained in Clause 1(3) which would relax the rule up to £20, £35 and £50 respectively in the coming three years. The cost to the National Insurance Fund and to public expenditure would be £60 million in 1975–76, £110 million in 1976–77 and £145 million in 1977–78. Of course there would be money coming back through the tax system, although that would not in itself help the National Insurance Fund. Even after taking account of that we should still be dealing with substantial amounts of money—£45 million in the first year, £85 million in the second year and £110 million in the third year.
I have not so far argued a case. I have taken a line which no previous Government have taken. I am not defending the earnings rule on the principles on which it was defended from 1948 to February 1974. Secondly, I am pointing out impartially and dispassionately what would be the cost of the proposal.
Of course, we need to know where the Opposition stand on this issue because the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made it perfectly clear in Committee that the Opposition's intention in supporting the two amendments which were consequently written into the Bill was to ensure that the subject was debated on the Floor of the House. If that is their purpose, I welcome the opportunity to give details of the Government's position. However, I understand the Conservative Party's position from its manifesto. It said:

We have relaxed the earnings rule in the past and we will relax it further. We will abolish it as soon as resources allow.
The Conservatives have been saying that since 1959. Why was nothing done between 1959 and 1974? Why did they make no improvement in the earnings rule in 1972 and 1973? I do not argue with the proposition that they want to relax the rule and abolish it as soon as possible. I see the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) nodding his head. He did not make so much progress on this point although he did something in 1971.
I know how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with the question of the complete abolition of the rule when the hon. Member was defending the rule. I am not defending the rule tonight. Instead I am approaching it from a different point of view. My right hon. Friend acted with a responsibility which I am sure we can expect to be matched from the Opposition Front Bench this evening. She said:
All of us stand back a little warily from total abolition at this stage, on no other principle than that of cost—which is really the only principle involved. We hesitate to pre-empt £100 million as a priority at this stage—or £115 million as the hon. Member said."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 27th February 1973; c. 690.]
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe is a responsible Member and I believe that he will match the attitude adopted by my right hon. Friend in opposition when, if we had wished, we could have pushed for complete abolition. Nevertheless we acted responsibly because we know that there are competing priorities and other claims on available public resources in the Department of Health and Social Security.
I understand that the Opposition cannot support these amendments in view of the speeches from their own senior Front Bench spokesmen. I know that a leadership crisis would not lead the Opposition Front Bench to act irresponsibly. They would not wish to go back on the firm words of their Shadow Cabinet Ministers.
On 13th November 1974 the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) said:
The second essential ingredient in our plan is this. It's the same for governments as for individuals. We must stop spending what we haven't got. Mr. Healey almost seemed to acknowledge this, but then he did not. In the end he said that he proposes to allow public


expenditure to rise by almost three per cent. a year in real terms. Of course, this would be a harsh cut on present expectations, but it isn't enough. The blunt fact of life is that we cannot afford any increase in public spending until we can see that we have turned the corner. And that won't be next year.
By that he meant not 1975.
The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who is away on urgent business in Canada, wrote in an article in the Daily Telegraph on 17th December that there was a need for
a planned restraint in the money supply and a gradual, but clearly spelt out, reduction in the rate of growth of public sector cash spending programmes.
If I quoted what the Leader of the Opposition has said, I could spend all night saying what we should be doing about the general levels of public expenditure. There is a case which I must argue with my hon. Friends, but I do not have to take anything from the Opposition.
7.0 p.m.
The House should calmly examine where the earnings rule should be placed in our priorities. We must set out the background to the discussion, which is that the Government have a record on pensions and social security matters since they came to office in late February 1974 which is unmatched by any administration during the whole of the post-war period. The July increases cost an extra £1,270 million of public expenditure. The Bill involves another £1,150 million.
Let us examine what the relaxation of the earnings rule would mean, whom it would involve, where it stands in a proper order of priorities and what we should do about it. First, the people who are directly affected, people who are retired, total 20,000, of whom 10,000 have reduced retirement pensions because of the operation of the earnings rule. The pensions of the other 10,000 are completely extinguished by the earnings rule. A further 200,000 retired people are at work but are not affected by the earnings rule where it begins to operate at £13, because their earnings are below that level.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House could say "But if the earnings rule were raised, some pensioners would or

could earn more than that". That is a fair point, but I am describing the present situation. The retired people whom I see at my surgeries or who write to me, who are doing some work, are not fortunate enough to be able in substantial numbers to have employment which brings them more than £13 a week. But I concede the point, because it is a fair one, and we should face all the facts before we come to a decision.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Is there not another relevant consideration? The main part of the subsection which was introduced in Committee, and which the amendment would remove, looks forward to 1980. If we carry the present inflationary factor forward to that date, we get very different figures from those which the Minister has just put before us.

Mr. O'Malley: The figure of £225 million that I gave as the cost of complete abolition is expressed in April 1975 terms. On the assumption that the general movement of prices and earnings is upward between now and 1980, which on the whole is likely, it will be higher then. But I want to comment on the 1980 proposition a little later.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am aware that at some point in his speech my right hon. Friend will qualify the modest figure he has just given of the number of people involved. But I am bothered in case anyone listening to those sentences and perhaps not catching the others should be left with the wrong impression. If we divide the £225 million by 20,000 we have a figure of over £10,000 a year. Therefore, as everyone will recognise, there is another point to be considered. I hope my right hon. Friend will come to that point, so that people will realise that the true number of those affected is 300,000.

Mr. O'Malley: Hon. Members know me well enough to know that I do not mislead the House. It is a foolish politician who tries to do so, but in any case, with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury around, I should soon be in trouble if I tried to do so on this subject.
There are 20,000 people in retirement who are affected, but I was going on to


say that if the earnings rule is abolished the retirement condition goes out of the window. The reason why it would be so expensive to abolish the earnings rule, or relax it to the extent to which it is relaxed by the Bill as it now stands, is that a further 190,000 persons who are still in full-time work and with 100,000 dependent wives would also be entitled to full pensions. Incidentally, if the figure were £10,000 a year I should want to be one of those lucky 20,000 people.
We must look at competing claims. When we consider the 190,000 men fortunate enough still to be fit enough to do a full-time job at 65, what worries me is that there are so many ex-miners, ex-steel workers and men formerly employed in heavy engineering and manual work who are in no condition to have any kind of job once they reach that age.
I want only to put the facts fairly to both sides of the House. When I have set out the case we must say what else needs to be done. We must decide our order of priorities. The Department's budget will lose out on other things. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) believes that the death grant should be substantially increased. So do I, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There is no difference between us on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) asked a question yesterday about maternity benefits for women who have no contributory record. Is there not a case for those women?
Is there not a case for doing more for the disabled? There are still great gaps in the disablement cover, even when we have NCIP and ICA, which are included in the Bill. Is there not a great deal to be done for the "Finer" families? Before I came into the Department I argued—and no doubt I shall argue in the future—that we should help people with their heating costs, because there are problems of hypothermia. I wish that we had the resources to do so.
I am merly setting out as fairly as I can what the cost would be and asking who would benefit. I recognise all the anxieties and grumbles about the earnings rule, but are we saying that the top priority should be given to the earnings rule, to the exclusion of the death grant, the maternity grant, the disabled and one-

parent families? All those items must be contained within the Department's budget.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is arguing internal departmental priorities. Some of us might have views about interdepartmental priorities which are rather different. One place where the earnings rule operates harshly is where a person does not qualify for a full pension. I think, for example, of the case of a single lady who, because she looked after an invalid mother and father for 30 years of her working life, qualifies for a pension of under £4 a week and yet is still barred by the £13 earnings rule. If my right hon. Friend looks at nothing else, will he look at that?

Mr. O'Malley: I intend to say something about the Government's future attitude towards the earnings rule. I say straight away to my hon. Friends that there is a clear case for examining precisely the kind of situation which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) has described where people have very reduced pensions. Until my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the changed age allowance in his Budget Statement it was the case that my hon. Friends were generally satisfied that we could not abolish the earnings rule in present circumstances. At that stage there was no complaint about the upward movement from £9.50 to £13.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend saying that, if the House puts the Bill back to where it was, the £45 million will be used for some of the deserving cases he has mentioned?

Mr. O'Malley: I shall answer precisely that point. It is a fair question which must be answered. If my hon. Friend feels that I have not answered his question before I sit down, I shall gladly give way to him. I want to satisfy him on precisely that point. The argument raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen was that it was not departmental priorities which concerned him but interdepartmental priorities. There has been argument about the age allowance announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget Statement. I shall leave my hon. Friend the Minister of State,


Treasury to deal with the details. I shall try to deal with the situation briefly.
The age allowance package announced by my right hon. Friend benefits 2½ million pensioners, whereas the earnings rule at best concerns 300,000. Secondly, over £200 million of the package goes to pensioners with under £2,000 a year or £40 a week. Many people have modest occupational pensions and receive very little in addition to their State pension.
A substantial part of the cost of the package was made necessary by the need to increase the age allowance so that pensioners were not brought into taxation as a result of the increase in retirement pensions. Successive Governments have done that. There is little point in increasing the national insurance retirement pension and not moving the Inland Revenue rules. When that is done it is found that Governments are taking money away from people and bringing large numbers of pensioners into the tax thresholds because they have not pushed up the tax rates.
We cannot increase retirement pensions and leave tax thresholds at their present levels. If we did that, the whole situation would become a nonsense.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend say exactly what he means? He has referred to a "substantial part" of the £285 million. Will he say how much?

Mr. O'Malley: Perhaps I might leave the details of the scheme, for reasons which the House will understand, to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury. Having seen the briefing on this subject, I am sure that he is more competent to deal with matters of detail than I am. I felt it right to say something about the matter and to point out why it costs so much. The fact is that it helps 2½ million retirement pensioners.
I shall now set out the Government's position on the earnings rule.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on what he said about the numbers of pensioners who might go back to work or who might work longer hours? There must be some basis of estimating that is available to him. The increase in the gross national product that can

result from having even a few thousand people working additionally must be of considerable benefit to the economy generally and must offset substantially the costs to which my right hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. O'Malley: There are no such reliable estimates. I take my hon. Friend's point. Even a few thousand additional workers in the workforce can bring benefit to the nation as a whole. We must set that consideration alongside the competing priorities and alongside the total cost of getting rid of the earnings rule completely.
I shall give some assurances to the House. I am not opposing root and branch any proposition to get rid of the earnings rule. I am saying that we must consider the costs. It seems to us that it would be wrong for us as a Government in 1975 to commit our successors—there will be another Government in 1980, whether it is a Labour Government or some other Government—on how they should decide their priorities in the light of the economic and financial circumstances of the time.
Having said that, I wish to give some assurances to the House and particularly to my hon. Friends who are concerned about this matter. First, it is our firm intention that there should be a progressive relaxation of the earnings rule as rapidly and as largely as our financial and economic circumstances permit.

Mr. Hooley: rose—

Mr. O'Malley: I have not finished. If my hon. Friend wishes to intervene before I sit down, he is in a position to do so.
We are not defending the earnings rule in principle. We want to effect as speedily as we can a progressive relaxation of the earnings rule. Secondly, I give my hon. Friend the assurance that there will be operating in the autumn of 1975 a review which will include the level of the earnings rule. Thirdly, within the near future we hope to bring forward to the House our proposals on better pensions. I refer to our long-term pension proposals.
A new range of considerations apply once we provide everyone with a fully earnings-related pension partly from occupational pension schemes and partly


from the State scheme. I give the House the assurance that the full implications of that scheme and any implications which have a bearing on the equity between the existing generation of retirement pensioners on the one hand and future generations of pensioners on the other hand will be taken into account.
We shall publish our pension proposals when we bring forward our Bill in the coming weeks. I hope that my hon. Friends will wait to see the detailed proposals which we shall be bringing forward on the earnings rule within our long-term pension scheme. I think that we can better discuss the long-term future of the earnings rule in terms of the new system rather than in terms of the system which is now dying. We are towards the fag end of that system.
I give the House and my hon. Friends who have expressed concern a firm assurance that their representations will not go unheeded. We do not wish to be committed to public expenditure levels of the kind that would be involved at this time as there are other priorities which must be given consideration. However, within those priorities we shall give a place in the level of public expenditure to the relaxation of the earnings rule.
I know of the anxiety and concern that has been felt by many of my hon. Friends who have received representations in their constituencies. I think that the long-term story will be that once again it will be a Labour Government rather than a Conservative Government who progressively improve or get rid of arrangements which are unsatisfactory to the public at large. The Conservative Party is good when it is in opposition, when it can act irresponsibly, but when in government it takes on a different complexion. I ask my hon. Friends to trust this Government to keep their pledges.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I find the Minister of State's speech deeply disturbing. First, it was disappointing in its first ten minutes, which I shall not attempt to match, when the right hon. Gentleman tried to adopt his knockabout and rather party political style, as he will do on occasion. In a serious debate, I shall try to avoid following him in that line.
When the right hon. Gentleman talked about costs and priorities, he got bogged down in an interesting use of figures. I would never accuse him of misleading the House, but we are accustomed to hear him using experience and expertise in national insurance in a way of which he seems barely conscious himself. He makes seemingly careful use of statistics and figures, but, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has pointed out, occasionally he uses for one part of his argument a basis totally different from that which he uses for another.

Mr. O'Malley: In which part did I use a different basis of figures?

Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman used a quite different basis on the cost part of his speech, maximising the cost on the assumption that 200,000 people were involved. Then he used a different estimate of 20,000 people directly affected when he came to the benefits which would flow from altering the earnings rule.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech will be greatly disappointing to many thousands of people who had been looking forward to relaxation of the earnings rule following the decision in Standing Committee. I give the right hon. Gentleman the credit for giving up the argument in principle. He accepted that there was no case in principle that he could put forward for the permanent existence of the earnings rule. He made no attempt to dissuade the House from adopting the principle of looking to the abolition of the earnings rule. All he would argue were questions of timing and cost against doing it now in the way in which the Bill has been altered by the Government's defeat in Committee. These were the only arguments the right hon. Gentleman presented. Yet those same arguments failed to deter hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and he had little further to add.
What assurances did he give? We are, after all, now debating this matter on the Floor of the House, which is to us of first importance, as we pointed out in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman put forward three points. First, he said that he would listen carefully to all our representations. Secondly, he


said that the whole matter would be borne carefully in mind in the next up-rating in autumn 1975.
Hon. Members who are, perhaps, not regular attenders at Question Time for the Department of Health and Social Security will perhaps not be aware that one of the right hon. Gentleman's regular replies on all claims for priority—it is perfectly proper—is that all the representations will be borne in mind, that the matter will be kept under review, that it will be looked at in the next annual review, and so on.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that pensions legislation is coming on the basis of the White Paper, "Better Pensions", which would enable the House to look at the matter again. However, the White Paper makes no mention of abolition of the earnings rule, so such abolition would be additional to the White Paper proposals if it were to be done. When the legislation comes we shall be bogged down by arguments of great complexity and importance about the future of occupational pensions and other matters, and it is absurd to say that we shall be able to go back to this whole matter of the earnings rule and consider it at that stage.
I am astonished that, in his difficult position, having been defeated in Committee and, therefore, anxious to appease his own suporters, the Minister has been empowered to say so little. Someone earlier referred to my having been a Government Whip. If the Minister of State, having been defeated in Committee, and knowing of the high level of concern among his own supporters, is empowered or prepared only to say the sort of things the right hon. Gentleman has just said, it is tantamount, if the Government have a competent Whips' office, to giving up. In truth he has been empowered to say nothing and to give no assurance which would go any part of the way towards meeting the view of the Standing Committee.
It is clear that if the House wants to turn the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the principle of the earnings rule into action it will have to defend the amendment carried in Committee against the Government. The House should want action, because we are all agreed on the

principle and are more or less committed to it. The Conservative Party was pledged to phasing out the rule in both of its last two election campaigns. In 1973, when my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) began to make concessions in debate on the earnings rule, there was no defence of the principle. Labour Ministers do not defend the future existence of the rule. I am assured that the Liberal Party, the Scottish and Welsh National Parties and the United Ulster Unionists support the ending of the rule. When a Standing Committee has carried the day against the kind of case which the Minister of State has put forward, Parliament should put its vote where its voice is and maintain the view of the Committee.
One of the priorities stated by the right hon. Gentleman was the Finer Report and the needs of the one-parent families. Earlier, he persuaded Labour Members through the Lobbies to vote against bringing in, by new Clause 2, family allowances for the eldest child of a one-parent family. He used the three-line Whip to clear the Tea Room of his supporters and marshal them into his Lobby. Now, he uses the same argument against ending the earnings rule. I grant that, because of the Opposition's view of the need to restrain public expenditure, we did not vote officially and he had an artificially high majority of 100 on new Clause 2. [Laughter.] If some hon. Members opposite would recall their election commitments and what the Government have said about the family endowment scheme and family allowances they would not be laughing, because they should be unhappy about what the Government are now doing. When we are united in this House on a principle, as we are today, we should put our vote where our voice is, particularly after a speech such as that just made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: There is one point which confuses me. The hon. Gentleman seems to be giving the impression that the Opposition in Committee knew what they were doing. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said that he would press his amendment the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), who was the other


Opposition Front Bench spokesman, said "No, we cannot afford it". Let us get this straight. In my view, someone in the Opposition in Committee saw a political advantage and took it. That is shabby.

Mr. Clarke: I will deal with that point. The same claim was made by the Minister of State. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) was present in Committee and will recall that the disputes which took place there were about the precise form in which the amendment should be carried. The amendment to abolish the earnings rule by 1980 was never in doubt, but a confused discussion took place, on an all-party basis, about what hon. Members wished to do. In the end an understanding was hammered out and the amendment of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was carried against the wishes of the Government. I remind the hon. Member for Eccles that he carried an amendment about disabled housewives. Having got his way with that, he is not, I hope, now rushing to the support of the Minister of State to show undying loyalty, because he will find that some of us doubt it.

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) cannot be allowed to get away with this. In Committee on 5th December the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), who is sitting next to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, referring to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), who had recognised that this was not his own top priority, said that
… if any of us had £133 million, or whatever the net figure is, to spend on social security measures in the best way we thought, there would be other priorities close to our heart …
I think that we are a responsible Opposition and we recognise the country's grave economic difficulties … which is why, regrettably, we cannot go the whole hog, as the amendment of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) seeks."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5th December 1974; c. 61.]
Will the hon. Member for Rushcliffe now explain that?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Clarke: I shall come to that later. [Interruption.] Very well, I shall deal with it now. If the Minister wants to mix it we will mix it. I shall deal with priorities in expenditure and come to the sub-

stance of the case later. The point mentioned in the quotation was the Government's figure of expenditure—£170 million, as it has become today. I shall come to that in a few moments. That figure is not sustainable when examined in detail.

Mr. O'Malley: rose—

Mr. Clarke: The Minister of State began his speech on a belligerent note, which is one of his styles when he is in difficulty. If he intends to do this he might give me the opportunity of answering the first point before he rises to raise a second one. [Interruption.] I hear some of his hon. Friends expressing my sentiments and asking when we are to reach the substance of the debate. As the Minister is challenging my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and me about what happened in Committee, let me point out that that Committee report is clearly of a discussion between hon. Members on all sides and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) about the amendments which were to be carried by the Committee.
The intention was to try to work out a serious timetable moving towards abolition in 1980, which the whole Committee thought should be done. In the end, the timetable put into the Bill was supported by the entire Conservative Opposition, by the Ulster Unionists Member from Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) and by one of the Minister's hon. Friends. I accept that the amendment is a combination of the three-year timetable and ultimate abolition in 1980. It is a clumsy amendment. That is why it gave rise to difficulties in Committee. However clumsy it may be, it was put forward in the hope and on the assumption that the Government would bring forward their own timetable in a better legislative form.
Eventually we voted for a clumsy, cobbled-together timetable, in the expectation that the Government would produce a neater timetable. If we re-examine that amendment we can see that what we cobbled together in an exercise in open democracy of an unusual type in Committee was a perfectly workable timetable. It has the desirable effect that it produces worthwhile stages over the next three years—raising the earnings rule to £50 a week in three years' time—and commits


future Governments, as we wish them to be committed, to total abolition by 1980. If the Minister is criticising the way in which this was put together in Committee I criticise him for having no proposal to meet our wishes, expressed so clearly in Committee.
Let us now get back to the question why we had to have that earnest discussion in Committee and why we defeated the Government, as I trust the House will tonight. Let us talk the language of priorities and examine the seriousness of the case for ending the earnings rule. We all know that great resentment is felt by 'those who are affected by the rule. It is believed by men over 65 and women over 60—if they are affected—to be the equivalent of a tax imposed at a penal rate compared with taxation imposed on the rest of the population.
The rule is a direct financial penalty on the efforts of such people. It is a financial penalty which is unfortunate, in that it falls only on the elderly—and only on those elderly people who are trying to keep themselves in work. For that reason it is felt to be particularly unfair. It has a serious disincentive effect on those trying to continue to work. As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) said, this country cannot afford such a serious disincentive to work, which damages our economic performance.
The Government say—the Minister was saying it at one time—that what I am talking about affects only 20,000 people. But they are the people who, despite the rule, work and suffer as a result. What no one knows, and what no one can estimate, is the number of people who are put off working at all because the earnings rule means that it is not worth their while. My opinion is that the problem for that group of people is not only the loss of income and independence which their choosing not to work results in. The rule also reinforces our undesirable custom of having a rigid retirement age for far too many people.
We have got into the rather grisly practice of declaring that men who have led a full and active working life should suddenly stop work at the age of 65 and turn from active employment to garden-

ing or pottery, or something more fulfilling, if they have had the opportunity to make preparations. Everyone knows that this sudden retirement, enforced by the earnings rule, has harmful mental and physical effects upon the well-being of many people.
It is said that if we end the retirement rule we are not paying the full pension only to those people; we are paying a pension to those now working in full-time employment. This is where the Minister, in his use of figures, switches from 20,000 or so few that it is hardly worth making the change, to 200,000, who make it staggeringly expensive and impossible for the House to contemplate.
Of course we accept—we canvassed it in Committee—that if this change is made we are moving from a retirement pension to an old-age pension and making a quite significant change in principle. Is that so illogical? When we consider the present system we must ask: is it making matters any more unfair? The first thing to bear in mind is that unearned income is not affected at all at the moment. If hon. Members are worried about relaxing the earnings rule for people in full-time employment what about the millionaire living on unearned income who gets the full rate of pension at the moment and is unaffected by the earnings rule? The man over 70 in full-time employment, or the woman over 65, regardless of income, is not affected by the earnings rule which lasts for only five years.
There are deep illogicalities in retaining the rule. We are not introducing an injustice by going over to an old-age basis. We can appreciate that people have been induced to feel that by their National Insurance contribution—because it is contributory and not means-tested and because it has the features I have described of being payable even to those receiving unearned income—that they have paid for the pension. The public at large call it an old-age pension. This is unfortunate for Members of Parliament and Department officials who have to spend their time trying to explain that it is a retirement pension.
There is a burning sense of injustice which is, in our opinion, justifiable. If we look at this in terms of the language of priorities there is no reason why we should not say that this has a high priority and affects many people. It is a worth


while reform which must be carried out now. If it is not, the kind of speech which the Minister has just made can be made time after time, year after year, and we shall never get round to giving it the highest priority.
There is also the argument about the expense. I can assure the Minister of State that the Opposition are extremely mindful of the argument on public expenditure and are trying to behave in a way which postpones many of our expectations in view of the present public expenditure position. We are even more mindful of expenditure when we appreciate that tomorrow the Government intend to spend another £1,000 million on indiscriminate food subsidies. I was interested to hear what the Minister had to say a few moments ago, and I could not help wondering, since he would not allow us to spend £11 million for one-parent families, what he intends to do in the vote on this £1,000 million.
Let me challenge the case put forward by the Government. It is that it will cost £185 million net of tax. I almost intervened during the Minister's speech, because he mentioned, totally irrelevantly, the figure involved before giving credit for tax. The use of £220 million was solely for the purpose of scaring the House. That is not the cost at all.

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman surely realises that the £225 million, as opposed to £170 million with a tax return, is of significance, not only because it is an accurate estimate in public expenditure terms, which the hon. Gentleman understands, but because it means £225 million to the National Insurance Fund. It is therefore relevant in that respect.

Mr. Clarke: In terms of overall public expenditure it would create interdepartmental problems and difficulties in financing the fund. On the basis which the right hon. Gentleman uses, £225 million is perhaps worth mentioning, although in terms of public expenditure net, in view of the tax savings, apparently £170 million is now his estimate. It was higher earlier.
We seriously question whether that figure should deter us from making the changes suggested. Reference has been made to the way in which one calculates the economic benefit from people who are working. There are substantial tax

savings and they are difficult to calculate. People who work in retirement pay taxation on their pensions because they are taxed as earned income.
However the Government's figure is mainly based on the theory that all the people in full-time employment who have not retired and who do not draw pension will do so if we accept this proposed change. I seriously question whether all the extra 180,000 or 190,000 people will draw the pension if we abolish the earnings rule. Would it significantly inflate the number of 20,000 people who are directly affected?
I am unable to understand why many do not draw the pension at the moment by notionally retiring but that is by the way.
But if these people are in full time employment, a significant number will be tempted to defer taking the pension to obtain the benefits of the increments that one gets by delaying taking the pension for five years. Those increments are not very attractive, although one receives an increased pension if one does not take it for five years. However, the Government propose—I give them credit for this—to bring forward legislation in the near future improving those increments, so that people will get an extra 6½ per cent. per year in pension for every year that they delay taking the pension. If a pensioner who delays retiring for five years is in full employment and does not take his pension for five years, he will receive 32½ per cent. more in pension at the end of the five years.
7.45 p.m.
I suspect that a large number of people in full-time employment will continue to live on their incomes and will choose to draw a pension one-third higher if they delay taking the pension. The Minister is in a cleft stick. Either he is minimising the importance of the increments and saying that an extra one-third pension is no inducement, or he admits the attractiveness of his new increments and then his figure of 200,000 people in question is melting away. They are in full-time employment and the right hon. Gentleman is giving them every inducement not to take the pension. The figure of 200,000 for people in full-time employment is the basis of the Treasury's estimate of £170 million. I have not a


precise estimate of the cost of abolition based on the 20,000 directly affected, but it is trivial compared with that put forward by the Minister.
The Committee was not persuaded that the figures which have been bandied about to scare the House were justifiable in terms of what is likely to happen. We are being put off a worthwhile reform by speculative figures. We believe that the Committee's decision was entirely worth while.
I have tried to deal with the matter in terms of the priorities which the House should choose and the financial implications of the change made. The final implications are political. When the House is agreed in principle, it must stick to its opinion. When a Minister who is sympathetic to a case is denied by other Ministers the facilities necessary to carry a reform into effect, it is time for the House to force it upon them. If a proposal is supported on an all-party basis by a committee which considered it with care, and if it is agreed to in spirit by the whole House, it is time for us to stick to our guns, to defend the Bill as amended and make sure that this reform is put on the statute book—spread over five years, but delayed not a moment beyond 1980, which is later than many of us would like.

Mr. Hooley: The core of the Government's defence in their attitude to this matter is the question whether, in present circumstances, the country can afford the expenditure involved in the coming financial year, which, net of tax, is, I understand, about £45 million.
The fallacy of their argument is that in real terms there need be no extra charge on the economy. It is a transfer from people who will pay the extra £45 million, either in insurance or in tax, to make sure that those who have retired and those in the category we are discussing may enjoy the pension for which many of them have paid contributions for 45 or 50 years, whether or not they decide to take up full-time work.
The essence of the economic case is that it is a switch of money, from those who are below retiring age and gainfully employed and are contributing to the national economy to the people in the category we are discussing. There is no

extra real charge on the resources of the country. Therefore, the Government's argument does not hold good.
The old-age pension for a single person is about 20 per cent. of average industrial earnings. In other words, we expect people to live on a sum which is about one-fifth of the sum which their fellow workers live on if they receive the average industrial wage. What is being said to people on that level of income is that if they have the impudence to contribute, in a modest way, towards enhancing the output of the economy by doing a useful job and earning £25, they forfeit the pension for which they have worked for 45 or 50 years, for which they have paid their stamp, and to which, by any standard of equity, they are entitled. If they go to work and earn £25, they will pay tax. The Inland Revenue will not let them off simply because they are 66 or 67 years of age. It is a form of penal taxation on people, most of whom are on very low incomes.
What is even more extraordinary—I find it staggering—is that the Government appear to be unmoved by a situation in which a retired person drawing unearned income suffers no such penalty but the man who works as, for example, a night watchman, and potters round for 30 or 40 hours a week because he cannot manage on 20 per cent. of the sum which most of his fellow citizens are getting, is told that this is socially outrageous and that he will not get that £10 if he has the impudence to obtain a job which pays him £25 a week.
My understanding of Socialism is extremely imperfect. I would not claim to argue with a great many of my colleagues about Socialist principles, equality and so forth, but if that situation is Socialist I simply do not understand the meaning of the word.

Mr. Paul Dean: I have vivid memories of this subject and of standing at the Dispatch Box on the Government side of the House and saying "No" when I would have preferred to say "Yes". The Minister of State, in introducing the debate, was in much the same position. I understood his arguments and I sympathise with him in having to put those arguments, but I knew what he would say before he said it, and he went on and said it.
The only argument that the right hon. Gentleman used tonight, and the only argument that was used by the previous Conservative Government, was the argument of cost, resources, public expenditure and priorities. I agree with him that that is the only argument one can use. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) doubted the arguments used by the Minister of State on the net cost of what is proposed in the Bill. I do not want to go into detail, but I believe that a fairly substantial cost would be involved. The House must address itself to a question whether that cost can be afforded and, if the sum of money, whatever it may be, is available, whether it should be used to help those who are able to earn and supplement their pension and are fortunate enough to have jobs when they are in retirement. Those are the two questions which the Minister of State fairly said must be answered.
They are strong arguments, but they are financial arguments—control of expenditure arguments, Treasury arguments. This subject tends to be thought of too much in terms of the Department of Health and Social Security Vote rather than the effect that it would have over Government expenditure as a whole and on broad social policy considerations. Those are the things that matter.
Equally, having supported much of what the Minister of State said, I find it difficult to follow his arguments on priorities. When the Government are spending, in a totally indiscriminate way, about £700 million on food subsidies—a figure soon to be substantially increased—and when those sums are so much bigger than any figure we can think of now, I find the argument of priorities not made out. Food subsidies are a clear case of money going to rich and poor alike and, in the case of milk, not only to human beings but to our pets—our dogs and cats. The priority argument used in the context of the Government's food subsidy policy is difficult to follow and to find convincing.
Apart from these economic arguments, there are important social arguments which all point strongly the other way. They point in favour of the Bill as it stands. Those social arguments become stronger year by year as the expectation of life in retirement grows. By 1980, the expectation of life of a person living

in a town will almost certainly be even higher than it is now.
Should we encourage people to go on working? Surely, the social argument there is emphatically "Yes". Should we try to create a situation in which retirement can be gradual? The answer there is also emphatically "Yes". Considerable social problems are created by forcing people into retirement and by the sudden break between full-time work and full-time retirement, and they are increasing year by year because the period of retirement tends to increase as the expectation of life increases. The social arguments are, therefore, overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill as it stands.
There is another consideration, which is what the Bill proposes. If it were proposed that the earnings rule should be abolished overnight, I should not be prepared to support it. That is not what is being proposed. The proposition may not be technically perfect, but the interesting part of it is that it proposes phasing out over a period. It does not propose that the strain should be taken all in one year, but it proposes phasing out over a period ending in 1980. That is an important consideration.
I come to my key argument. I believe that no Government will ever abolish the earnings rule, and possibly not even phase it out, unless the House of Commons pushes them into it. I say that with bitter experience. The very fact that I stood at the Dispatch Box and said "No", and that the right hon. Gentleman stood there tonight and said "No", shows that clearly. It is very much a House of Commons occasion, and unless the House of Commons pushes the Government into it and names a date, no Government of any political colour will be able to do it. The reason is simple. At the end of the day in the Government's mind the public expenditure argument will triumph over the social arguments. The Treasury will win and the DHSS will lose.
If the House of Commons believes that the time has come to get rid of the earnings rule by phasing it out, this is the opportunity for the House to say so, loud and clear. Nobody tonight will support the principle of the earnings rule. Most hon. Members, on both sides of the House, believe that it should go, and I suspect that DHSS Ministers are of the


same opinion. So why not take this opportunity tonight to help DHSS Ministers?
If the amendment is carried the DHSS Ministers will be able to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer "Chancellor, we did our best; we developed all the arguments with as much enthusiasm as we could muster, and the House of Commons would not have it." So DHSS Ministers can go to the Chancellor with an absolutely clear conscience.
I suggest to both sides of the House that the right thing to do tonight is to support the DHSS Ministers, to be kind to them, by voting to phase out this unloved earnings rule.

8.00 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: There is only one hon. Member in the House tonight who could persuade me to go into the Government Lobby, and that is the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean)—and he nearly did so. Had he gone on much longer he would certainly have done so, because he recalled to my mind the same battle as occured towards the end of 1972 when he resisted the same arguments as he has put forward today. He then fought hard to prevent his back-benchers doing the sensible things which some people on this side of the House have suggested.
I agree with the last point made by the hon. Gentleman. What we have to do tonight is to assist the Department of Health and Social Security and its Ministers in achieving an objective which in their hearts they want to achieve. Throughout the whole of this affair the departmental Ministers deserve the Treasury award for loyalty to collective decisions, far beyond the call of duty and certainly beyond the call of common sense. I am only sorry that when they are standing in the white sheet of innocence I should be clothed in different colours.
The argument breaks down into three parts. The first is the general case against the earnings rule, which has been well canvassed and into which I do not need to go in detail. Secondly there is the question of cost. Thirdly there is the question whether there is anything special about the present time which justifies us in taking a different decision from that

which has been taken in the past. I take a different decision now than I did last April and June when the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) last proposed the abolition of the earnings rule. I shall later explain the reasons why I take that view.
The Minister said that he was not defending the earnings rule. For a man who was not defending that rule, he certainly did a good job in trying to keep our hands off it. However, I take it that in principle he was not defending the rule.
The case against the rule breaks down into the fact that it applies only to earnings and not to other forms of income. That is an outrageous affront to the people who are its victims. It is an indefensible position. If the Government are saying that we should hang on to the earnings rule, I should like to see legislation brought in providing that the pension shall be dependent on income—all income. There would then be an element of fairness. If, however, they are not taking that view, I shall not stand for the retention of that unfairness.
Secondly, there is the point that the rule constitutes 100 per cent. taxation on the amount earned. In other words, it is a disincentive to work for those who want to work because they seek to pass the time and do not want to become "cabbages". It is also a disincentive to work for those who have a defective stamp record and thereby are not entitled to full pension. We must also consider that it penalises women between the ages of 60 and 65 who feel that they do not want to stop work at that age. Furthermore, it penalises men from the age of 65 to 70 since that age is close to the normal death age of the average male. Therefore, the average male suffers the earnings rule very close to the end of the lifetime expectation.
A further point which has not been mentioned in the debate is that the rule is an enormous encouragement to dishonesty. The Department has come up with the information that there are 20,000 people who are subject to the rule. But there are probably tens of thousands of others who ought to be subject to the rule but who have fixed it with their employers not to report it. If 20,000 people are said to be subject to the rule,


this means that there are 30 such people in each constituency. I ask any hon. Member who has talked to his constituents in the last year how many times he has come across grumbles about the earnings rule. The number is far greater than has been suggested.
There are some particularly unacceptable features about the rule. It has been said that it cuts a reduced pension. If a widow has only £5 pension because of a defective stamp record, the rule does not excuse her. It takes away the last £5 of her pension, at the same point as it would take away the first £5 of somebody on a £10 pension.
There is another insane anomaly to which in the past this House agreed blindly, as it often does, which is totally indefensible. Let us take a person who has retired and takes a post-retirement job and who is paid £15. He is subject to the earnings rule, so that £1 is knocked off his £10 pension and he ends up with £9 pension. Let us then consider a person who has not retired but who has an income of £15—in other words, a person of retirement age who has not in fact retired. Because his income is over £13, under the rule he is not treated as if he had retired. He is subject not to the earnings rule but to the retirement condition. He gets no pension whatever. If he were paid only £13·10, he would receive no pension whatever. Obviously he would go to his employer and say "Take 15p off my pay, because I shall then be better off". That is the rule which we are being invited to defend. If the rule contains such idiocies, we should certainly not defend it to the last ditch.
Let us consider the taxation position. At up to £13 the victim will pay tax of 33 per cent. in the pound. If the figure is £13 to £17, he will lose half the pension and 33 per cent. of the remainder. That will make an effective deduction rate of 66 per cent. With earnings running from £17 to £25 there will be a 100 per cent. deduction. From £25 upwards he reverts to the original position with effective taxation of 33 per cent. Therefore, as one goes up the band of earnings the figures run from 33 per cent. deduction to 66 per cent. and then to

100 per cent., and then back to a deduction of 33 per cent.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that such a person is liable to lose money in respect of the loss of rent and rate rebates and could be paying as much as 120 or 130 per cent. tax?

Mr. Cunningham: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It was said in Committee that in certain cases a person would be worse off as a result of earning an extra £1 because of a combination of restrictions.

Mr. Alec Jones: Will my hon. Friend say how a person receiving pension and earning £13 per week can possibly come into the category of those entitled to supplementary benefit? If he were not in that category he could not possibly lose it.

Mr. Cunningham: Perhaps when my hon. Friend intervenes he will be able to answer those points because they are directed at him. I shall answer one point which I recall being raised in Committee. In certain circumstances, in addition to tax deductions superannuation and other similar deductions are made from pay. If those sums were added, the person concerned could end up with a deduction of more than 100 per cent.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There are over 20 means-tested benefits of one kind and another available to people above the tax threshold. If the Minister is not aware of the extent of poverty surtax, I invite him to look at the grave difficulties caused by the present situation.

Mr. Cunningham: It has been suggested that it is a fundamental principle of our system that the pension is a retirement pension and not an old-age pension. Let us kill that once and for all. It is not. It is an old-age pension. It becomes an old-age pension at age 65 for a woman and at 70 for a man. Beveridge sliced in, under the old-age levels of what had always been an old-age pension dating back to Lloyd George, a five-year period during which there were the earnings rule and the retirement conditions. There is no fundamental principle in that.
It might be useful to consider what the effect of inflation has been on the level


of the exemption rate as it now exists. The rate was raised last summer by the Labour Government, which was a highly desirable thing to do. It was last raised before then in 1971 to a level of £9·50. If it had to keep the same real purchasing power now as £9·50 in September 1971, we would require not £13 but £13·70. In other words, the effective exemption level of the earnings rule now is less than it was put at in September 1971. It was put then at £9·50, and the present level is equivalent in purchasing power to £9 at that time.
One could go on making these comparisons. I use the retail price index and not the earnings index. Taking for example the 1969 figure, which was put at £7·50, that would be equivalent to £12·60 last month. By April—the time we are talking about—that £7·50 figure for 1969 would be equivalent to £13·20. If the Bill remains as the Government wish, in April—it will be worse still for the rest of that financial year—we shall have a lower level than we had in 1969.
The 1969 figure was £6·50. If we apply the index to that, by April 1975 it will be £12·88. By the end of the financial year of which we are speaking we would have an exemption level which was roughly the same in real terms to the figure which was set in 1964. That is a totally unacceptable position.
As to the cost, there has been a lot of talk about figures. I must say something about the Government figures. There have been some revisions of the figures. I do not suggest that there has been any fiddling of the figures. I have no doubt that the improvements in the figures have all been desirable and necessary to introduce greater accuracy. I only know that some figures have gone up and some have gone down. The ones that have gone up are those which it is in the interests of the Government's argument should go up, and the ones that have gone down are those which it suits their argument to go down.
I do not suggest that there is anything inaccurate in the figures which the Government have produced. I only say that it is a pity they did not get them right in the first place, especially since all the figures I have been working on derived from specific parliamentary Questions

directed to exactly this subject, and I take serious exception to replies to parliamentary Questions not giving the right answers in the first place.
It is the cost that matters to us. In the year 1975–76 the cost of the Bill as it stands will be £60 million gross, or £45 million net after taxation. If we were meeting that by an increase in national insurance contributions, what would be the increase required since an increase in contributions is the natural way of meeting an increase in benefits? The amount of £60 million—forgetting the tax return—constitutes approximately 0·9 per cent. of the outgoings of the National Insurance Fund in the year in question. Therefore, we should in principle raise contributions by 0·9 per cent. The employee now pays 5·5 per cent. We should make him pay 5·55 per cent. The employer ought to pay not 8·5 per cent. as is proposed but 8·58 per cent.
8.15 p.m.
If I dare to mention without provoking discussion the self-employed contributions, the self-employed person ought to pay not 8 per cent. but 8·08 per cent. The Government Actuary does not work to the second decimal point. If the Government Actuary had been told that he had to assume this change in working out the contributions required, he would still have come up with the same figures for contributions as he has brought forward. The amount of money involved is well within the inaccuracy factor in working out the National Insurance Fund and he would have ended up with the same contributions—5½ per cent. for the employee, 8½ per cent. for the employer and 8 per cent. for the self-employed. It is too minor to take into account in any other way.
This is why I am steamed up about the matter. In November the Chancellor announced the new age allowance for everyone over the age of 65. I welcome the procedural change which is involved from the old-age exemption to the new age allowance. No one understood the old-age exemption. This is a highly desirable procedural change. However, no sooner had the Chancellor finished the sentences in which he announced that change than I muttered to myself that it was daft to spend money in preference


to abolishing the earnings rule. It came as a great surprise to me to discover—this has been admitted by Ministers—that this decision was taken without considering the alternatives, between the age allowance on the one hand, in the taxation sector, and abolishing the earnings rule in the social security sector. That was done because taxation was regarded as such a secret Budget matter that nobody outside the Treasury, even in the Government, had to know about it.
I think that matters might be different in the future as a result of the hoo-ha which has been created. If a Government botch something—as they admit they did on this matter—we cannot expect half a million people outside to pay for it. We cannot say to them that it is perfectly true that none of us defends the earnings rule. We are all against it. As soon as we can get our hands on the money for changing it, we shall do so.
Unfortunately, however, the Treasury spent at least as much money as it will cost to abolish the rule on a different purpose of lower social priority. The Government made the mistake and they will have to live with the consequences. I am not prepared to say to my constituents "I am sorry, but you will have to wait another five years for someone to come up with the same amount of money again".
The Treasury, even now, could recover a large part—perhaps all—of the cost of the proposals in the Bill by reducing the cut-off point for the new age allowance. The Treasury proposes that the age allowance should be extended to people over the age of 65 who have incomes of up to £3,000 a year. People in retirement with incomes of up to £3,000 a year are not the highest social priority in my book. Some of the money could be recovered in that way.
If the Minister says, as I have no doubt he will, that it is too late to do that in the year 1975–76, I accept that. However, in April 1976 the question will arise of whether the £3,000 limit has to be raised to take account of inflation. Inflation will be our ally in this case. The Treasury will simply need to say "We botched it before. We shall not botch it again. We shall not raise the limit for a long time." As a result, in the later years when the phasing out of the rule is most costly, it will be able to recover some of the money.
One detailed point is that, although the Treasury's tax proposal in some degree overlaps the earnings rule abolition, it does not do so for women. Women will get the benefit of the tax proposal only when they are over the age of 65, whereas they are subject to the earnings rule only when they are under the age of 65.
In considering the fact that the cost in the first year would be very modest, we ought not to forget that the money was available but that the Treasury foolishly spent it on a less desirable purpose. We should say that we are prepared to introduce the change now. If the Treasury says that it has announced it, I reply that it has not been through the House, that there is no financial resolution relating to it and that the Finance Bill relating to it will not come before us before the summer. If the Treasury says none the less that we have to vote upon it, this is government by pronunciamento. If only on that ground, it should not be allowed to pass.
I am very disappointed at the offer which the Government have made today. We have been offered the assurance of a progressive relaxation as rapidly and as large as the economic situation permits. There will be an uprating in the autumn of 1975, and the Government will review the earnings rule in the course of that, but without commitment about whether it will be changed in the autumn of 1975. It will be taken into consideration when working out the new long-distant pension scheme. Finally we have a firm assurance that our representations will be taken into account fully.
I cannot see anything there which makes me feel that we should back down. If the Government had said that they would not accept these figures in the Bill, that they would take a more modest figure in April—possibly £17 instead of £20—with a further change in April 1976, and if they had given a firm assurance, on those figures, on which we could reply for a change in the Bill at a later stage, I would have been prepared to vote with the Government. But, in view of the fact that they have given nothing but assurances of sympathy for the future and no indication of change, either this April, next autumn or the April after that, I do not feel able to support them.
I shall therefore vote against Amendment No. 2. I am inclined to vote for Amendment No. 3 which would kill the abolition of the rule in 1980. After all, 1980 is so long away that we can do all sorts of things before then. The main thing is to get the process properly started this year and to continue it. Therefore, I shall vote against Amendment No. 2.
I want to make it clear that I am not voting against the Government, and if that is suggested I shall resent it. I am voting against the earnings rule, and I very much resent also being forced to vote in the opposite Lobby from the Government in order to do so.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: When we debated the position of the self-employed before Christmas, I had the great good fortune to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). On that occasion, as now, he made a very close and careful analysis of a difficult problem and demonstrated his great experience and mastery of these matters. For anyone with substantially the same point of view as the hon. Gentleman, that makes it a great deal easier and enables him to make a briefer contribution.
I have a double good fortune in that on both occasions I have had the pleasure of hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) speak from the Opposition Front Bench. He made a cogent case this evening, as he did on the earlier occasion to which I have referred.
I did not have the good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee whose labours we are now discussing. I regret that, the more so as that Committee came to such a sagacious and constructive conclusion in regard to the earnings rule. It would be a great pity if a conclusion arrived at following such close and careful consideration were to be overturned by any automatic response to the Division bell induced by, a conditioned reflex to a three-line Whip. Therefore, I was glad that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that to a substantial extent he intended his vote to follow his voice when the time came to be counted on this matter.
It would be a great pity to reverse the decision of the Standing Committee, because of the natural disappointment

and dismay that it would bring to many existing pensioners and many future pensioners—we are looking ahead to 1980 in this matter. It would also be a pity because it would have an adverse effect on the good repute of Parliament if, having come to this conclusion in Committee and raised these expectations, we were now to go back on it and disappoint those pensioners.
In presenting the Government's case, the Minister sought to say that the principle of the earnings rule was not involved. He said that he was not defending the earnings rule. He may not have been defending it in words, but he was in fact.
If we consider what he is doing rather than what he is saying, we see that he proposes to retain the earnings rule in all its existing rigidity and harsh precision. I believe that it is wrong to do so, and I want to add one or two short comments to what has already been so well said from both sides of the House.
First, with regard to cost, there have been two defects in the presentation of the cost aspect. The financial assessment has been presented in limited departmental terms rather than in the broader context of public expenditure as a whole. Secondly, the aspect of cost should be looked at in an economic rather than an exclusively financial context, but the Minister has not presented to us any full cost-benefit analysis on a real economic basis. If he had, he would have taken account not only of the impact in the financial context of public expenditure but also of the advantage to the gross national product which would accrue from continued working and continued contribution to national resources.
That leads me to the related but broader consideration: what should be the natural position now and in the future of this relatively narrow range of sexagenarians with whom we are here concerned? I say "relatively narrow range" because we are concerned with only a five-year range, resulting from the illogicality of this time-encrusted formula which says that the earnings rule ends in any event at the age of 70, or 65 for women.
What should be the normal and acceptable position, in the last quarter of the twentieth century, of people in the 65-plus age bracket? As we look to the future, we should not take the view that


there is any presumption or assumed normality of sudden retirement at 65. It should be regarded as at least equally reasonable and probable that people will elect to continue in work. Indeed, they should be encouraged to do so. That is the logic of the changing pattern of population and of the inflationary tendencies in the economy.
After all, on both those matters the pattern has changed very much since the days of Beveridge. I remember—a long time ago now, alas—when I first became closely concerned with the problems of the age structure of the population and of the aging pattern of population when I was Minister of Health, seeing what a great change had come about since, for example, the start of the century when only one person in 21 was over 65, compared with the proportions of today.
The logic of that and of the economic inflationary tendencies is that people should normally, where at all possible, be encouraged to continue in work and defer retirement and accept the increments. Indeed, I am proposing shortly to follow precept with practice and do that very thing myself. I believe that this recipe is right on psychological as well as economic grounds. Looked at in terms of the happiness and fulfilment of people in this age bracket, it is right to encourage a continuance in work rather than to impel people to what nature would now consider a premature and unnecessary retirement.
8.30 p.m.
I have never liked the earnings rule, or fixed ages of retirement. I am not attracted by the sort of argument that the Minister put in the forefront of his case for some part of his speech—that because this has not been done by one administration or the other in the past there is some convincing reason that we should be estopped from doing it now. This point was made in particular in regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) who recently had departmental responsibility for these matters.
My own withers are unwrung in this matter. I did not hold office during the 1970 Government, nor during the Douglas-Home Government, nor in the twilight of the Macmillan Government, but during all that time and before it I

have been an advocate of doing away as soon as possible with the earnings rule. I have received, as have other hon. Members—only I have received them perhaps over rather a longer time than most—[Interruption.] The Patronage Secretary has added his always agreeable presence, for whatever tactical reasons may be uppermost in his mind. I should like to think that he had come into listen to me, but I know that that is not so—that other matters are engaging his attention.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): I cannot take too much humbug. Is it not a fact that the Conservative Party was in power for over three years? If they had all these hundreds of letters, not only now but then, why did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own Government do something about it?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: No party has yet achieved the absolute abolition of the earnings rule. But the right hon. Gentleman is doing himself less than justice—

Mr. Mellish: No, I am not.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Yes, he is. I know that he does not often have the opportunity to make contributions to our debates, other than to move, "That the Question be now put", or some other feast of rhetorical delight of that sort; but he is putting forward the very argument which I had just said was not an argument to appeal. It is an argument which would condemn us to a static situation and prevent all progress if it were sufficient merely to say that because a thing had not been done in the past, therefore it should never be done.
I was saying that I have favoured this move for a long time. I have heard more representations than most. The right hon. Gentleman has served in the House for exactly the same time as I, but he represents so far fewer constituents than I—

Mr. Mellish: You are joking: I have 56,000 now.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: And I have 90,000. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to delight the House by these unexpected rhetorical contributions, he must do what we humbler Members do—a


little homework, to try to get at least a nodding acquaintance with the merits of the matter and the facts of the case under discussion. I apologise for the fact that this unexpected pleasure of the right hon. Gentleman's attendance and intervention has prolonged what I was going to say.
I was concluding by saying that in common with other right hon. and hon. Members, but perhaps for rather longer, I have had long and continuing evidence of the importance attached to the matter by many of my constituents. Although we are debating the matter this evening primarily in economic terms, we should not forget the human aspect behind it and the strong feelings that many of our constituents have in regard to it, the disappointment they will feel if we fail them now, and the pleasure and relief that they will experience if Parliament is able to adhere, as I hope it will, to the wise decision of the Committee.

Mr. John Dunlop: As the Member for Mid-Ulster whose name has been bandied about during this debate, I should like to begin on a non-antagonistic note and offer to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State the congratulations of the Ulster Unionist Party on his elevation to the peerage of the House of Commons. I tried to do that in Committee but the opportunity did not come my way.
When I saw the composition of the Committee and noted that the front runner for the Government had the rich Irish name of Brian O'Malley, I said to myself "Shades of Brian Boru". He was an Irish hero king who wielded a mighty sword to dispel the Danes from Ireland. He was so busy fighting the Danes that he never troubled about the British at all. We have no record of his ever coming to the north of Ireland. Possibly he was frightened by the ancestors of the B men.
I shall not enter into technicalities or mathematics. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said that he would not do that, but he did it very effectively. He mentioned many of the matters that I would have mentioned, so I shall not bore the House by repeating them. All I want to say is that this earnings rule is an attack on wages. I do not use terms such as "income", "emoluments", "salary"

or anything else. I use the good old trade union term of "wages". This earnings rule is an attack upon the wages that a man may earn when he reaches pensionable age.
In Committee I was trying to defend myself against the slanderous charge that I had been brought in as Lobby fodder for the Opposition. A look at the record of voting, in Committees and in the House, will convince hon. Members that the United Ulster Unionists have not come here to be Lobby fodder for any of the major parties in the House. We have come to take a meaningful part in Parliament. That is what we intend to do, and that is what I tried to do in Committee.
I want to speak only about my experience and my position. Come May of this year I shall have been paying national insurance contributions, in some form or other, for 50 years. I started off with 4d. being deducted from my pay of 7s. 6d. a week as a junior assistant in a big multiple grocery concern. In fact, my wages were so small that I was unable to pay my tram fare, and had to walk about two and a half miles a day. At three-monthly intervals my father used to wonder what had happened to my boots or shoes, because they were walked off my feet in going to and from work.
What hits me is that after paying national insurance contributions for 50 years, in some form, when I attain pensionable age—my hon. Friends will know of the turbulent nature of politics in Northern Ireland and what the uncertainty of our tenure in this Parliament could mean—I could be looking, perhaps, for a job as a security officer for a few pounds a week. That would be a great job in the Northern Ireland of these days. Yet this measure will provide that if I earn £13 or more a week I shall lose some of my pension. That is very bad. It is unjust and anti-Socialist, and as a trade unionist and the son of an ardent trade unionist, I am against it.
I hope that the conclusions reached in Committee will be supported again tonight. When the Minister of State talks about the cost, I wonder what the Government are doing contemplating giving large sums to the tottering giant, British Leyland, and the other big industrial concerns which will receive millions of


pounds to keep them in business. How relatively small will be the cost of abolishing the earnings rule? I hope that all fair-minded hon. Members will tonight confirm the decision taken in Committee.

Dr. Colin Phipps: As my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will know, it is not my habit to vote against the Government and I do not approach that prospect with any pleasure tonight. I do not wish to join in a statistical joust, but I have 76,000 electors and at the two election campaigns in 1974 I found that the earnings rule and dissatisfaction with it came very close to being the most popular topic for discussion on their doorsteps. I am sure that is true not only of my constituency. The only subject which vied with it was the problem of widows, and about half of those cases were related to the earnings rule.
I have been urged to read the brief supplied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have done so. I was urged to attend the debate in order to hear what the Minister had to say. I came hoping that we would be offered something which would enable us to go into the Lobby with the Government tonight. So far, nothing has been offered.
It is worth bringing to the Minister's attention yet again the feelings of the electorate about the earnings rule. People one meets on the doorstep do not see the rule in terms of the difference between old-age pensions and retirement pensions. They see it as an issue of a tax which starts at a rate of 50 per cent. They know that for a family to be paying tax at the rate of 50 per cent. it must be earning about £10,000 a year. The pensioners reach that rate at £13 a week. That is a gross unfairness and it bears most heavily on Labour supporters.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he will do all he can when the opportunity arises. The position seems to me to be no different from the assurances which the Conservatives gave in 1959 and which my right hon. Friend was mocking not long ago. The then Conservative Government gave identical assurances that something would be done when the money was available. In 1975 the same assurances are being given, albeit by a Labour Minister.
8.45 p.m.
On the question of priorities, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) asked where the £45 million that would be saved would be spent. My right hon. Friend said that he would answer my hon. Friend in the debate, but I do not recall that he did so and I do not know what priorities he would have for spending that money. Many Labour Members feel that it is a question not so much of "either or" but "neither nor" when it comes to priorities for that £45 million.
But priorities are not always priorities on things which might be done. There are also priorities on things which are being done. My right hon. Friend is in effect suggesting not only that this measure is of a lower priority than other things which he might do but of a lower priority than all the other things on which the Government spend money. I find that difficult to believe. It is difficult to believe that in the huge portfolio of Government expenditure there is not at least one item worth £45 million which is of a lower priority than the earnings rule.
If Labour Members are to be persuaded to vote with the Government tonight, we must have something to take back to our constituents, to take back on to the doorsteps to answer our constituents' pleas and to answer the letters we continually receive. I should be disposed to vote for the abolition of the earnings rule if it did nothing else than to save my having to write so many letters trying to justify the unjustifiable. I am sure that many Labour Members have the same problem.
I plead with my right hon. Friend to think again before the end of the debate and to give us something to take back to our constituents. If he wants my vote and the votes of some of my hon. Friends, he will have to do something.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I have not followed the various aspects of the matter as closely as some hon. Members who have spoken today, because obviously I am not old enough. My retirement comes in the year 2011, and therefore I have no wish to declare an interest.
However, during the time I have been involved in politics I have more than once been collared by a few people who


have expressed amazement at the apparent generosity with which the Government treat some people who do not want to work compared with the way in which they themselves are treated because, although they have reached the age of 65, they wish to work. There is substantial support in the country for the idea that work should be virtually compulsory till 65, allowing for the fairly obvious cases where that might not be possible, and that after that it should be voluntary.
The retirement pension is little more than 20 per cent. of the national average wage, yet the person who works after retirement is, in effect, taxed at 66 per cent. on £13 a week. Therefore, work after the age of 65 is not really voluntary but probably comes into the classification of masochism.
What has struck me about the debate is that it approaches only earnings and not investment income, annuities or company pensions. We must ask, what is wrong with work? Some people argue that there should be compulsory retirement at 65 in an attempt to deal with the unemployment problem, which looks as if it is becoming worse. On the same argument the compulsory retirement age could be reduced to 50 or even 45. There would then be no unemployment but we would have no economy either.
One of the figures that I looked up some time ago was the ratio of people who are of pensionable age to those who work. When I speak of workers in that context I mean anyone who works for a living. We are now in the position of having 277 pensioners for each 1,000 people who are under 65 and working. There are approximately 2·9 million people in the broad range of the 65–70 age group for men and the 60–65 age group for women. I am told that in 1951 31 per cent. of men in that age group pursued full-time employment. The figure dropped to 19 per cent. in 1971.
I have no wish to put any great pressure on the age group we are discussing. All I want to do is to remove a disincentive. If we could persuade 12 per cent. of the 3 million people who come into this working age group to return to work, there would be an increased labour force of approximately one-third of a million.
For the Government to say that there would be a net cost to our economy if there were one-third of a million more people working after reform than before does not strike me as having much logic. Of course, the strength of that argument lies in departmental isolation—namely, that we have to balance each bucket. It does not matter about balancing all the money among all the buckets. What we have to do is to balance the money in each bucket. If these extra people decided to work, the nation would have to provide from the increase in the gross national product to an extent that would more than make up for the obvious losses to the Exchequer.
My next point is one that I have often made in politics—namely, credibility. It is a matter that was faced in Committee. There is now a chance that we will reverse our decision. If we look back through old copies of Hansard we will find that there has always been virtually a unanimous vote on the Opposition benches for the reform of the earnings rule. It appears that Members go through some sort of conversion when they escape from opposition to government.

Mr. John Ovenden: And the other way round.

Mr. Penhaligon: We have not been on the Government side of the House for a long time, but that is by the way.
People feel that they are being badly treated. Often they have worked for 50 years for their pension, and for earning as little as £13 a week they begin to see their pension disappear. People believe that they are having a bad deal. They are cynical when they hear politicians of all parties expressing support for reform and then doing nothing about it. The Liberals will tonight support the retention of the amendment that was passed in Committee. We believe that it will do much to reduce the cynicism of the people.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: I felt it was high time that the voice of a Scottish Member was heard in this debate. It has been interesting to note that the only party which has consistently been present to represent the views of the Scottish pensioners has been the Scottish National Party. We have had a great deal of statistics—.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: That is not factual.

Mrs. Bain: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has only just come in. I have been sitting here for five hours waiting to speak.
I have found this a fascinating debate. The Scottish National Party believes in principles, but we have found, time and again, that opponents of principle move away from principle and try to blind us with statistics. That is what we have been getting today on this issue, especially from the Government.
I shall not go into great detail about cost, and so on, but we have been told by the Government that we cannot afford to abolish the earnings rule because we would have to find other ways of paying, and people would have to pay further contributions. The magazine, Pre Retirement Choice of December 1974, in an article not perhaps as famous as the one written by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), said that
there is evidence from surveys carried out on behalf of Age Concern to suggest that most people would be willing to pay some higher contributions to improve the lot of the elderly here and now.
Few people object to this kind of priority to look after old people, and yet, consistently, from Westminster Governments we get priorities very much in the opposite direction.
We in the Scottish National Party believe that the earnings rule is a discriminatory tax against people who want to work or who have to work. People at the age of 60 or 65 do not want to go on the scrap heap. Many want to go on contributing to society and have a spirit of independence which urges them to continue in employment. Many others have to work because pensions are inadequate to cope with the cost of living. I appreciate that the Government are considering that issue, but they have taken their time over it.
In Scotland, many pensioners are forced to work—the more so because of the higher cost of living in Scotland, particularly in respect of food and fuel—and, of course, our climatic conditions mean that people have to spend more on food and fuel and thereby find themselves in a disastrous situation.
Before the debate, I had expected some promise—some real concession—from the Government to the feeling that is so obvious in the House. That has not happened. Unless something much more substantial comes from the Government, the Scottish National Party will oppose the Government in the Lobbies on this issue.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the hon. Lady sits down—

Mrs. Bain: I have sat down.

Mr. Dalyell: This would cost at least £20 million on a Scottish basis, and some of us think that if £20 million is to be spent it can be spent better.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) indicated that she had resumed her seat permanently.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I shall not detain the House for long, but as this the first occasion on which I have found myself in a situation in which I think I shall be voting against my own party's Whip, I want to make a last-minute appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services—I am glad that she is here—to make some concession and to present some more effective argument than has been presented so far in the debate.
The argument on the issue of retaining this provision in the Bill has been overwhelming in the debate, particularly as presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), but the specific point which I do not think has been stressed adequately is that the cost involved in the provision is really incalculable. We have been given a ceiling of £60 million for the current year and £45 million after taking account of the clawback of taxation. What is not taken account in these figures is the number of people at present deterred from going out to work, and not only the income tax which they would pay on what they would earn but their contributions to the national productivity which results from people being able to work rather than being dependent on State benefits.
9.0 p.m.
We all know, from the letters we receive and from our experience, how


this compulsion to retire early causes people to die prematurely. We know that if people are enabled to continue at work they will contribute to society and live more satisfactorily. At present there is a penal rate of tax for those who continue working after the official retirement age. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury gave examples of the circumstances in which the rate of tax can rise to 100 per cent. for certain rates of income. When we take into account, too, the loss of many other means-tested benefits we see that the tax rate could rise to 120 per cent. or even 130 per cent.
The Under-Secretary intervened to challenge my hon. Friend on this matter. I found it surprising that he was unaware that there were a large number of means-tested benefits for which a person could be eligible, even though his income was well above supplementary benefit level.
This has been a one-sided debate, in that the arguments presented initially by the Minister of State were not convincing. I came into the House today having weighed up the issues very seriously over a considerable period. I was one of the signatories to the Early Day Motion on the subject, but I had decided that, on balance, I ought to accept the Government's view.
Having listened to the debate, I have come to the conclusion that the cost has been greatly exaggerated and that there are many factors to mitigate that cost, if not to cancel it out altogether. I sympathise with the Secretary of State. She has a fixed departmental budget. The amount involved in this proposal is relatively small. It may be very much smaller than has been suggested. This is an inter-departmental problem. We, as back benchers, must decide it in the context of overall Government policy. We must ask the Government to put this right.
There may have been a lack of consultation between the Treasury and the relevant Departments when it was decided to raise the threshold for tax purposes. I do not think that I can accept that that must bind me. The Secretary of State is reported to have said that this was an issue which he was prepared to take as one of confidence. I implore her to reconsider that and to take steps now to

say that she will, at the least, accept the provisions in subsection (3)(b) for 1975–76—that is, the raising of the earnings rule to £20. If we can get a pledge to the effect that amendments will be introduced in another place to deal with this for 1975–76, and that the position will be reviewed thereafter, I shall be prepared to accept half a loaf. Without even a crust I must, for the first time, go into the Lobby against the Government Whip.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: The case put forward by the Government has been so completely demolished by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that I do not need to dwell upon it at length. I owe it to the House to explain why there was a confused debate in Committee and why the amendments that have come from the Committee have a certain roughness about them. The hon. Member tabled his amendment and I tabled two amendments which had the effect of attacking the earnings rule. When we came to the debate the hon. Member's amendment had the misfortune still to be starred, and was not selected. I do not know whether he would have carried the Committee with him, but he would certainly have had my support.
Rather to my surprise, both my amendments were selected, the Chairman ruling that they were not incompatible. The Committee was able to consider one or other, or both of my amendments. To my gratification it carried them both. One of them concerned the timetable, reducing the operation of the earnings rule up to 1978 and raising it to £50; the other abolished it in 1980 but left latitude, in between, to the Secretary of State.
Of the two, I prefer the absolute abolition in 1980 rather than the timetable, because the timetable does not succeed in killing this monster. With the process of inflation and the passage of years, the Department may reinstate the earnings rule if we do not take a clear-cut decision. I implore hon. Members who care about this matter to recognise that we must go for abolition in 1980. We shall then be expressing the will of the House and of the public.
Much has been made about the claims on the Budget, but do pensioners do more to increase the nation's wealth by staying at home, doing nothing, and


living on their savings, or by working? It is self-evident that they contribute more to the nation by working than if they do not. Spurious calculations based on narrow, departmental budgetary considerations, forgetting the overall national interest, no not deceive the House and do not convince the public. We have had enough of all those arguments.
There are deeper considerations, and I propose to touch on one rather unwelcome aspect, not dealt with in the debate. In industry and at work there is a rancid atmosphere of mistrust and cynicism, and of connivance. There is widespread concealment of pensioners' earnings. The reason is that the Government are confronting deeply-held public beliefs about the entitlement of pensioners. There is therefore widespread connivance in evading the earnings rule.
It is dangerous Government policy to insist on maintaining the application of a rule which has totally lost public respect. I have dealt with the question of entitlement so often that I do not need to go over it at length. Are entitlements to national insurance benefits related to the need of the beneficiary, to the contribution, or to citizenship—which I would prefer? We reject the concept of need as the root of entitlement to pension. Nobody likes the means test. We are therefore in agreement. It is either the pensioners' contribution record or his citizenship which gives entitlement to pension. It is nothing to do with his income.
Only yesterday the Secretary of State said in reply to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), who I regret is not present:
… there has been an enduring feeling in this country particularly among the trade unions, that there is a kind of guarantee about a contributory scheme—a guarantee that would not obtain in the same way if the scheme were financed entirely out of taxation."—[Official Report, 28th January 1974; Vol. 885, c. 186–7.]
What private pension scheme based on contributions could possibly operate on the basis on which the Government try to operate the national insurance scheme—that if a person is earning he loses the entitlement for which he has paid through contributions?
If the Labour Party believes in the contributory principle it must believe in the

abolition of the earnings rule. The argument about the rule applying at 65 but not at 70 makes nonsense of the principle. Savings income is disregarded, but income which derives from earnings results in the deprivation of pension. The whole House is ashamed of the earnings rule. It is being invited to vote for expediency instead of principle and to support the Treasury in the teeth of public opposition. I do not think it should.
This proposal has not been given high priority. As the Bill stands, it will take five years to get rid of this odious rule. But there is reason for us to take time about it. It will take time for employers to provide work, on a large scale, of a kind which will reflect the greater readiness of pensioners to work but possibly only short hours. Equally, older workers approaching retirement, as well as those who have retired, will need time to adapt their plans and way of life.
It seems to me that the year 1980 offers a reasonable compromise, and I hope that the Committee will be supported by both sides of the House in the vote. We want to make a fair society. We want to give our old people a better deal. The arguments which have been advanced from the Government Front Bench are totally unconvincing. Now is the time finally to get rid of this odious rule.

Mr. James Lamond: Despite having listened to the entire debate I have not yet made up my mind how to vote tonight. Unlike some Labour back benchers who have spoken, I have on one occasion voted against the Government and I might be prepared to do so again. But there is no Secretary of State against whom I would vote with greater reluctance than my right hon. Friend. In considering what I should do I take into account all that has been achieved by her Department in the short time since the February election. I have not forgotten the generous increases that have been made to retirement pensions, or the compassionate extension of the Christmas bonus to groups of people who were not considered suitable for it by the Conservative Government.
It cannot have escaped the attention of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that every speech that has been made by Labour back benchers has been against the amendment proposed by


the Minister of State. I should be happy to see a small chink of light which would enable me to go into the Lobby cheerfully to support the Government.
All the arguments I have heard are ones which my instinct is to support. The Government argument is based on the difficulty of meeting the necessary expenditure at the moment. Various estimates of the expenditure have been made. The Minister did not give us a complete list of the benefits that could be set against that expenditure. Considerable benefit to the economy would arise from the provision in the Bill.
When I voted against the Government I did so because I was dissatisfied with the alleged cuts that were proposed in defence expenditure. I contrast sharply the ease with which additional money is found for defence expenditure, and the total defence expenditure, with the difficulty that arises whenever sums of £40 million or £50 million are mentioned for the social services.
I am confident that not only Labour Party activists and supporters in my constituency but also the majority of my constituents—even some who did not vote for me—would support the view I am putting in support of the measure. They would prefer money to be spent on that much-needed social measure than on defence.
I hope that the Government will make a concession to enable me to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whose work I so much admire.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Bradford: It is doubtful whether any debate since the debate on the interim Budget will have captured the attention and imagination of our people more than the present debate. There is an existentialist content about the debate, because many pensioners regard it as a matter of life or merely existence. If the amendment is not agreed to, it will be an existence of great deprivation. It is important to put on record that the United Ulster Unionists will vote against the Government tonight.
To try to put the matter in layman's terms, the issue seems to be as follows: everybody is most anxious to help the pensioners but, to date, nobody has had the courage or determination to make a

final effort. The Government seem to be saying that we have a choice. It is a matter of priority. On Clause 6 we shall debate a great area of need which seems to us to be more important even than this matter. Therefore, it is not a question of either Amendment No. 2 or Clause 6, but of both.
The expenditure involved is not beyond the competence of this House. It has been said that £45 million would be needed to meet the requirement. This House has given permission for the expenditure of many millions of pounds on projects such as the European Economic Community—

Mr. O'Malley: The figure is not £45 million but £225 million. I would add to that the total sum of the cost to the British taxpayer of our present Northern Ireland policies.

Mr. Bradford: The Minister has his own party members to deal with when he bandies statistics around.
The point I wish to make is that we have thrown away many millions of pounds on issues like the Common Market—money we shall never recover, because of the stupid terms to which we agreed—yet we are depriving a group of pensioners of a greatly needed increase in income.
I should like to make three very brief points. In this provision the Government are attacking wages. We must not lose sight of that basic fact. It is the wages of pensioners which are the subject of that attack. The Government are putting wage-earning pensioners in the same class as those who have never contributed a penny to the National Insurance Fund. They seek to deny pensioners their total pension if they earn more than a certain figure. One of my constituents earns about £20 a week, and the tax which she pays as a pensioner is £10. Therefore, the Government are effectively robbing her of her total pension. The rule which we are discussing tonight actively discourages people from working during the vital first years of retirement. I stress that point.
Other hon. Members made the point that the principle of related earnings ceases at the age of 70. That disparity is nonsense. Why should it apply at 65 and not at 70? The average age of death of a man today is 68, while that of a woman


is 72. We have the terrible problem that the majority of men never escape this iniquitous taxation. There is a myth abounding that the old-age pension stage of life is a rather less expensive time. That is a myth. Most of such people have the same commitments as they had when they were working. In many cases pensioners are moved to other accommodation, which requires expenditure in terms of furniture, and so on.
It is a myth that the twilight years of one's life are a less expensive age. Assurances have been given that the Government will examine the problem of related earnings. It is clear that pensioners need not pie in the sky but pie in their ovens and cupboards. I shall not be a party to decimating still further the widow's mite.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Doubtless in lists circulating on both sides my name appears as a doubtful.
I listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) because I have a very great respect for the study he has made of the subject and for his ability to put a case in a simple yet detailed manner. I remember what he said during the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill 1973, a Conservative measure which increased and made the self-employed contribution earnings-related, as well as other measures which are now unpopular with the Opposition.
In the Committee stage of the 1973 Bill, my hon. Friend did the same as the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) has done in regard to this Bill. He put forward an amendment concerning tax relief on a second pension. Eventually he won the support of his Opposition colleagues and of some Government supporters.
Let us not be mealy-mouthed about what happened during the proceedings on the 1973 Bill. A Second Reading debate on that Bill took place. I do not recollect anybody going into the raptures we have heard from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) about the earnings rule. There was a lot of talk about the self-employed. I did not hear the representative of the Scottish National Party, hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies or Opposition

Members going into details and saying that the earnings rule was a great matter of principle. The amendment carried in Committee was not an official Opposition amendment. No amendments were tabled by the minority parties. Nor was an amendment tabled either by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury or by any other Member of the then Opposition.

Mr. George Cunningham: I tabled an amendment to abolish the earnings rule. That was done at the relevant time. However, through incompetence on my part it was a "starred" amendment and, therefore, the debate took place on the basis of the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys William). But I tabled an amendment. I also discussed the matter on Second Reading.

Mr. Marks: I apologise to my hon. Friend. It is not easy to check amendments tabled to a Bill during its Committee stage. I did not see my hon. Friend's proposed amendment to this Bill, although there may have been one in regard to the April Bill.
In any event, this is not a matter about which the Opposition feel strongly or have any deep principles. When they were in government they increased the earnings rule only once. That was in 1971. They increased it to £9.50. In 1972 and 1973, when there were very considerable increases in the cost of living, they did nothing.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) suggests that no Government will abolish the rule, and he says that the House of Commons must tell Governments what to do. I like that idea, but there is a danger. Hon. Members are under pressure from their constituents to demand the abolition of the earnings rule, immediate increases for one-parent families, increased family allowances and the rest of it. The same happens in local councils. For 11 months of the year councillors will demand everything, then they moan when the rates have to go up. The same applies in this House when individual Members and minority parties make demands, although they are not prepared to meet the costs.
The costs have to be met. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South


and Finsbury says that it will involve only £60 million. That itself is debatable. We do not know how many people who work on instead of retiring would retire if they thought that they would get their full pensions. The increase which they get at the moment if they work until the age of 70 is about £3. If they can have all their wages and their full pension as well at the age of 65, it is likely that a considerable number of them will remain at work.
Then again, my hon. Friend supports the Opposition amendment. However, I warn him that the Opposition will not support him when he comes to say that we should get rid of this increased tax allowance up to £3,000.

Mr. George Cunningham: I know that they will not support me on that. But we shall not need their support on that, because we have a majority to carry it.

Mr. Marks: We know how large our overall majority is at the moment. It needs only a small group of Government supporters interested in a topic like social security to carry the day against the Government. There is a great danger of that happening on this occasion.
If the cost comes from contributions—I think that it will have to—it will mean the family man earning £30 a week having to pay increased contributions. I do not care how little the increase is likely to be. I can assure hon. Members that that family man will not like it, especially when it is to go to people who say that they have retired, who are receiving their pensions with perhaps some superannuation as well, and who may be earning as much as £50 a week. I am not sure that that is a priority which I would recommend.
Although I should like to hear firmer assurances from the Minister about the future, I feel that it would be unwise to put a figure on it of £20 or, in certain years, of £50. We know what changes in the cost of living and in terms of inflation can occur. Not so long ago, £10 for a single person and £16 for a married couple were regarded as magnificent. Though we have made those increases already, our Government are saying that they ale not enough and are increasing them.
Having considered this matter fully, for those reasons I shall go into the Division Lobby to support the Government.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): We have had a long debate on what everyone has accepted is an important matter and well worthy of our time. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, said that he would not attempt to defend the earnings rule, and that is my position too. My right hon. Friend rested his defence mainly on the grounds of the large cost. I hope later to explain what the Government propose in the light of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) about formal assurances about the future.
The threshold for the earnings rule was £7·50 in November 1969. Under a Tory administration it was raised in September 1971 to £9·50, and last summer we raised it considerably to £13. We thereby showed that this was a matter of great concern to us. When we had undertaken large pensions expenditure of a kind unmatched under previous Governments, at the same time, in very difficult circumstances, we made provision to improve the earnings rule.
An earnings limit of £20, if introduced in April 1975, would cost £60 million for the whole year 1975–76. After receipts of tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said, this would be reduced to £45 million. My hon. Friend also mentioned some inaccuracy in a parliamentary reply. I am not aware of the case he cited and I have tried to conduct a hasty investigation, but I shall be delighted to take this up with him. I can assure him, however, that if there is any inaccuracy it is not intentional. He probably knows enough about how these matters are dealt with to accept my assurance.

Mr. George Cunningham: I was thinking not of a reply relating to that point but of an answer I received on 19th November about the cost of abolishing the earnings rule, which I was told would be £175 million a year. That figure has been raised to £225 million by reinterpretation in the last two days. I think that £225 million is right, although it


includes a large element of guesswork, but I was given a firm estimate of £175 million some weeks ago.

Mr. Sheldon: I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I shall go into the matter further for him. It should be clearly understood that the public expenditure implications of the abolition of the rule in total are the figure of £225 million and that the cost to the Revenue is £170 million after taking tax into account.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: In making his assessment of what would be recovered through tax, what estimates has the Minister made of the number of pensioners who would come into the tax system as a result of the abolition of the rule, and what basis is there for those estimates? They must be very sketchy.

Mr. Sheldon: In discussing these matters no one can say that the estimates have an accuracy which the facts themselves cannot provide, because there are certain uncertainties in this matter. What I would say very strongly is that I find it very difficult to accept the criticisms made by former Ministers about the earnings rule when they had so long to bring about the changes themselves. There was extreme conviction in the feelings about the earnings rule voiced by certain hon. Members, whom I much respect. At the same time, however, it is very difficult for the Government side of the House, when confronted with our own splendid record on pensions, earnings rules and all these benefits which we willingly provide to the aged, to have thrown into our face the fact that we have not produced any solution in the short time available on the earnings rule itself.

Mr. Paul Dean: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to an argument which has been used in this debate? That is that the argument on priorities has been devalued under the present Government, because no less than £700 million is available, in a totally indiscriminatory way, for food subsidies, and the Government are about to come to the House to increase them.

Mr. Sheldon: I note what the hon. Gentleman now says. I find it very sad that there is such a change of heart in

matters which affect so many people so fundamentally.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: May I take the Minister back to the point about the figures? I believe that he has come here mainly to defend those figures which did not persuade anyone in Committee. So far he has simply reasserted them. Is it right that the £170 million, which he is again quoting, is based on the assumption that everyone in full-time employment at present not drawing a pension would draw his pension once the earnings rule was abolished? If that is so, will the Minister address his mind to the fact that a large proportion would not draw the pension but would prefer to defer taking it so as to have the benefit of the substantial increments after the five years' delay?

Mr. Sheldon: I understand that point. The only assumption we can make is the assumption based on what has happened when the earnings rule has been relaxed in previous years.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to develop the point. What really matters here is that the first stage would be an increase of a kind not dissimilar from those which have been made on previous occasions. The first stage is an increase, not an abolition.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Sheldon: I have given way a great deal. I should like to have got a little further.

Mr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We understand that we are trying to conduct a running argument during a normal debate, but there is a tremendously important point involved. In April, for the first time ever, deferring one's pension becomes a worthwhile thing to do. We all know that in the past that has not been a worthwhile thing to do. In April, under the Social Security Act, it becomes worth while because one gets 6½ per cent. added to one's pension for every year one delays it. The point that has just been made is tremendously important. If the Government are saying that the figures they are using do not take that into account, the figures are not worth anything at all.

Mr. Sheldon: I cannot believe that this has quite the significance that my hon. Friend attaches to it. But there will be a marginal difference. I accept that. However public expenditure implications are matters which must concern the House. They certainly concern the Government at a time of great economic difficulty, which remains with us.
I shall shortly say what the Government propose, and I shall offer what my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton asked for—these firm assurances for the future.
Perhaps I may comment on the changeover from the age exemption to the age allowance. I believe that there have been a number of misunderstandings as to what this involved. What it is about is this. We decided, in my view quite rightly, that the age exemption had a number of great problems for the people who were involved.
For the married couple the age exemption started at £1,170. If they had earnings or income greater than that, they had to pay 55 per cent. on the excess. This was a matter of enormous concern and extensive correspondence. I speak with some authority about the matter because I have written hundreds of letters about it to hon. Members whose constituents could not understand why they were paying tax at the marginal rate of 55 per cent. To bring this nonsense to an end, and because of the increase in the retirement pension which made it impossible to continue, we proposed to convert this to an age allowance and it was readily accepted by the House. It was of great value. It meant that most people will not be brought within the scope of the 55 per cent. rate, and it makes it very much easier for the ordinary person to understand the situation.
There are, of course, one or two problems which result from inflation and which increase the need for changes in personal allowances. These are complications which we do not need to go into now, although I shall explain them to anyone who is interested.
I shall now say something about the chink of light which an hon. Member asked for. Both the Chancellor and I accept the case for phasing out. The House must accept that the last spring

Budget saw a substantial increase in the threshold—an increase which the House readily approved. We recognise the need to continue this progress over the forthcoming years until the earnings rule is removed. I hope that this assurance will appeal to the House and that it will endorse the Government's view in due course.
At this precise moment in our economic circumstances I cannot commit the Government to a precise amount or to precise timing. Any increase in expenditure must be met by raising revenue. This is the kind of commitment which no Government can enter into. However, I think that the House will be able to accept what the Government propose and I believe that it will confirm the Labour Party in the responsible attitude that it takes for the proper running of the economy. At the same time, it will reinforce the reputation it justifiably has as a party which is devoted to deep concern and the practical solution of the problems of old people.

Mr. George Cunningham: Are we to understand that my hon. Friend is offering that this matter will be seriously looked at in the course of the Budget to see whether it is possible to increase the figure of £13? Have I given a reasonable paraphrase of the situation? Does it not mean that we shall have the figure of £13, which is already worth less than it was in 1971, which will continue for many months? Is it not possible for the Government to offer £17 in April and a further rise a year later? That would remove this difficulty.

Mr. Sheldon: It is impossible to carry on budgetary debates of this kind. I would have thought that I had gone very far by saying that we would continue this process through the forthcoming years until the rule is abolished. The financial implications will have to await the Budget, but I thought that what I had given would in general terms command the support of the House.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak again briefly. I shall delay the House for only a minute or so, because I gather that the general feeling is that we now wish to come to a vote.
Towards the end of his speech, the Minister of State reached the concession that the House has wrung from the Government. It came in the carefully prepared statement which he read out. I need not take up the interjection of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). It was scarcely worth the hours of preparation and careful thought that no doubt went into it, because it carried the matter no further.
I had looked forward to the Minister of State's intervention, because throughout our proceedings in Committee we had cast doubt on the alarming figures of public expenditure which the Treasury had put forward. We had looked forward to the hon. Gentleman's justifying them in the face of the detailed criticisms put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, and all the rest of us. All that we had was a mere reassertion, and what appeared to me to be an admission by a

Division No. 77.]
AYES
[9.46 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Allaun, Frank
Corbett, Robin
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Anderson, Donald
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Freeson, Reginald


Archer, Peter
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cronin, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Ashley, Jack
Cryer, Bob
George, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Gilbert, Dr John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dalyell, Tam
Ginsburg, David


Atkinson, Norman
Davidson, Arthur
Golding, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Gould, Bryan


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Gourlay, Harry


Bates, Alf
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Graham, Ted


Bean, R. E.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Deakins, Eric
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grocott, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bishop, E. S.
Delargy, Hugh
Hamling, William


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hardy, Peter


Boardman, H.
Dempsey, James
Harper, Joseph


Booth, Albert
Doig, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dormand, J. D.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dunn, James A.
Hatton, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Dunnett, Jack
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Heffer Eric S.


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Edelman, Maurice
Horam, John


Buchan, Norman
Edge, Geoff
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)


Buchanan, Richard
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
English, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Ian
Ennals, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hunter, Adam


Cant, R. B.
Evans, John (Newton)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Carmichael, Neil
Ewing Harry (Stirling)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Cartwright, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Janner, Greville


Clemitson, Ivor
Flannery, Martin
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Coleman, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Ford, Ben
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John
John, Brynmor

Treasury Minister who has been stiffening up his DHSS colleagues to resist us throughout that he does not understand the implications of what is happening next year—the higher increments if one delays one's retirement. It is clear that he does not know the assumptions on which his figures are based. When we point them out, he cannot defend them. His contribution was not worth making.

I strongly advise my right hon. and hon. Friends, and every other hon. Member who has the interests of the elderly at heart, to resist Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I trust that there will be no need for us to come to Amendment No. 5, on which I ask for a separate Division only in the unlikely event of the Government's carrying the day.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 280.

Johnson, James (Hull West)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Skinner, Dennis


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stallard, A. W.


Judd, Frank
Newens, Stanley
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


Kaufman, Gerald
Noble, Mike
Stoddart, David


Kelley, Richard
Oakes, Gordon
Stott, Roger


Kerr, Russell
Ogden, Eric
Strang, Gavin


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
O'Halloran, Michael
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Kinnock, Neil
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lambie, David
Orbach, Maurice
Swain, Thomas


Lamborn, Harry
Ovenden, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lamond, James
Owen, Dr David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Park, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parker, John
Tierney, Sydney


Lipton, Marcus
Parry, Robert
Tomlinson, John


Litterick, Tom
Perry, Ernest
Torney, Tom


Lomas, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Loyden, Eddie
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Radice, Giles
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


McElhone, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Ward, Michael


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Richardson, Miss Jo
Watkins, David


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watkinson, John


Mackenzie, Gregor
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Weitzman, David


Maclennan, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wellbeloved, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Madden, Max
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
White, James (Pollock)


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Rooker, J. W.
Whitlock, William


Mahon, Simon
Rose, Paul B.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Marquand, David
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ryman, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Meacher, Michael
Selby, Harry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Woodall, Alec


Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Woof, Robert


Millan, Bruce
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. John Ellis and


Molloy, William
Sillars, James
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.


Moonman, Eric
Silverman, Julius





NOES


Adley, Robert
Chalker Mrs Lynda
Fell, Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Channon, Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Alison, Michael
Churchill, W. S.
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Arnold, Tom
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Cockcroft, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Awdry, Daniel
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cope, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Baker, Kenneth
Cormack, Patrick
Freud Clement


Banks, Robert
Corrie, John
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Beith, A. J.
Costain, A. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bell, Ronald
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Benyon, W.
Crawford, Douglas
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Crouch, David
Glyn, Dr Alan


Biffen, John
Crowder, F. P.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Biggs-Davison, John
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Goodhart, Philip


Blaker, Peter
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Goodhew, Victor


Body, Richard
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodlad, Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gorst, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Drayson, Burnaby
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Braine, Sir Bernard
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Gray, Hamish


Brittan, Leon
Dunlop, John
Griffiths Eldon


Brotherton Michael
Durant, Tony
Grist, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dykes, Hugh
Grylls, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hall, Sir John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Buck, Antony
Elliott, Sir William
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Budgen, Nick
Emery, Peter
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bulmer, Esmond
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burden, F. A.
Eyre, Reginald
Hannam, John


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Harvie, Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Carson, John
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hastings, Stephen







Havers, Sir Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hawkins, Paul
Mayhew, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin


Hayhoe, Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mills, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Henderson, Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman
Sims, Roger


Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger
Skeet, T. H. H.


Higgins, Terence L.
Molyneaux, James
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hooley, Frank
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Speed, Keith


Hooson, Emlyn
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Spence, John


Hordern, Peter
Morgan, Geraint
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)


Howell Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Spriggs, Leslie


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Sproat, Iain


Huckfield, Les
Mudd, David
Stainton, Keith


Hurd, Douglas
Neave, Airey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, John


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Neubert, Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Newton, Tony
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


James, David
Nott, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stokes, John


Johnston Russell (Inverness)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tapsell, Peter


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Jopling, Michael
Pardoe, John
Tebbit, Norman


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Kimball, Marcus
Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Percival, Ian
Thompson, George


Kirk, Peter
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tinn, James


Knox, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Townsend, Cyril D.


Lamont, Norman
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Trotter, Neville


Lane, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Raison, Timothy
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lawrence, Ivan
Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Lawson, Nigel
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wakeham, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Lloyd, Ian
Reid, George
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Loveridge, John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Luce, Richard
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walters, Dennis


MacCormick, Iain
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Watt, Hamish


McCrindle, Robert
Ridsdale, Julian
Weatherill, Bernard


McCusker, H.
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wells, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Welsh, Andrew


MacGregor, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wiggin, Jerry


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wigley, Dafydd


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Madel, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Winterton, Nicholas


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Marten, Neil
Royle, Sir Anthony
Younger, Hon George


Mates, Michael
Sainsbury, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mather, Carol
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr. Adam Butler and


Maude, Angus
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Scott-Hopkins, James



Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Social Security Benefits Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Amendment proposed: No. 3 in page 2, line 24, leave out subsections (4) and (5).—[Mr. O'Malley.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 258.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[10.2 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Evans, John (Newton)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Allaun, Frank
Ewing Harry (Stirling)
MacCormick, Iain


Anderson, Donald
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McElhone, Frank


Archer, Peter
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Armstrong, Ernest
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Ashley, Jack
Flannery, Martin
Mackenzie, Gregor


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Atkinson, Norman
Ford, Ben
Madden, Max


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Forrester, John
Magee, Bryan


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mahon, Simon


Bates, Alf
Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth


Bean, R. E.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marquand, David


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Dr John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Boardman, H.
Gould, Bryan
Mikardo, Ian


Booth, Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Graham, Ted
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Bradley, Tom
Grocott, Bruce
Molloy, William


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moonman, Eric


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Buchanan, Richard
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Newens, Stanley


Campbell, Ian
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Noble, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Hatton, Frank
Oakes, Gordon


Carmichael, Neil
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ogden, Eric


Cant, R. B.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Halloran, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Heffer Eric S.
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Cartwright, John
Henderson, Douglas
Orbach, Maurice


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hooley, Frank
Ovenden, John


Clemitson, Ivor
Horam, John
Owen, Dr David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Padley, Walter


Coleman, Donald
Huckfield, Les
Palmer, Arthur


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Park, George


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parker, John


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hunter, Adam
Phipps, Dr Colin


Crawford, Douglas
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Crawshaw, Richard
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cronin, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)
Radice, Giles


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Reid, George


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)




Rooker, J. W.


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rose, Paul B.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, Ted


Delargy, Hugh
Judd, Frank
Ryman, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kaufman, Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Sedgemore, Brian


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Russell
Selby, Harry


Dormand, J. D.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)


Dunn, James A.
Lamborn, Harry
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Sillars, James


Edelman, Maurice
Lee, John
Silverman, Julius


Edge, Geoff
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Skinner, Dennis


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lipton, Marcus
Snape, Peter


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Litterick, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Ennals, David
Loyden, Eddie
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)







Stoddart, David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stott, Roger
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan Leo (Hornchurch)


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Ward, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Swain, Thomas
Watkins, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Watkinson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Watt, Hamish
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weetch, Ken
Woodall, Alec


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Weitzman, David
Woof, Robert


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wellbeloved, James
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thompson, George
Welsh, Andrew
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
White, Frank R. (Bury)



Tierney, Sydney
White, James (Pollock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Tomlinson, John
Whitlock, William
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.


Torney, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd





NOES


Adley, Robert
Fell, Anthony
Lamont, Norman


Aitken, Jonathan
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lane, David


Alison, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawrence, Ivan


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(Spelthorne)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, Nigel


Awdry, Daniel
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Baker, Kenneth
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Banks, Robert
Freud Clement
Lloyd, Ian


Beith, A. J.
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Loveridge, John


Bell, Ronald
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Luce, Richard


Benyon, W.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McCrindle, Robert


Biffen, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
McCusker, H.


Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Macfarlane, Neil


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
MacGregor, John


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Madel, David


Bradford, Rev Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marten, Neil


Brittan, Leon
Gray, Hamish
Mates, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Griffiths Eldon
Mather, Carol


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Grist, Ian
Maude, Angus


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grylls, Michael
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hall, Sir John
Mawby, Ray


Buck, Antony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mayhew, Patrick


Bulmer, Esmond
Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Hannam, John
Mills, Peter


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Harvie, Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Miscampbell, Norman


Carson, John
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Havers, Sir Michael
Moate, Roger


Channon, Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Molyneaux, James


Churchill, W. S.
Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Cockcroft, John
Hicks, Robert
Morgan, Geraint


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Cope, John
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cormack, Patrick
Hooson, Emlyn
Morrison, Peter (Chester)


Corrie, John
Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David


Costain, A. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Neave, Airey


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Howell Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nelson, Anthony


Crouch, David
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Neubert, Michael


Crowder, F. P.
Hurd, Douglas
Newton, Tony


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Onslow, Cranley


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
James, David
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Drayson, Burnaby
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Paisley, Rev Ian


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jessel, Toby
Pardoe, John


Dunlop, John
Johnston Russell (Inverness)
Parkinson, Cecil


Durant, Tony
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Michael
Penhaligon, David


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Elliott, Sir William
Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner


Emery, Peter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Eyre, Reginald
Kirk, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Fairgrieve, Russell
Knox, David
Raison, Timothy







Rathbone, Tim
Shersby, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D.


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Silvester, Fred
Trotter, Neville


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Sims, Roger
Tugendhat, Christopher


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Sinclair, Sir George
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Viggers, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Speed, Keith
Wakeham, John


Ridsdale, Julian
Spence, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Sproat, Iain
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stainton, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, John


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Stanley, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Winterton, Nicholas


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Sainsbury, Tim
Stokes, John
Younger, Hon George


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tapsell, Peter



Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Adam Butler and


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret



Shepherd, Colin
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Amendment No. 4, therefore, falls.

Mr. Edward Heath: Mr. Speaker, would you be prepared to accept a motion to enable consideration to be adjourned so that a spokesman for the Government may give an indication of the Government's thinking on the previous amendment, which was carried by the House against the Government?

Mr. Speaker: I put to the House at 10 o'clock a proposition that the Bill should be considered until any hour. Having done that, and it having been agreed to, I am afraid I cannot entertain the right hon. Gentleman's motion.

Mr. Heath: rose—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one at a time.

Mr.Heath: rose—

Mr. Healey: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Heath.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Heath: In that case, Mr. Speaker, may I put a point of order to enable the Government to clarify their position? The amendment which the House carried against the wish of the Government will be of great benefit to those who have retired and who wish to work. From 1976 it will increase the limit of their

earnings to £20, then to £35, and then to £50.
I wish to ask the Government spokesman what is now the Government's attitude to the amendment. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seems so anxious to leap to his feet, give an undertaking that the Government, following a financial decision of the House of Commons, will not attempt to use their majority in the House of Lords to overthrow the open declaration of the Chamber, elected by the people of this country, to help our old people to have a better life and to enable them to contribute to the production of this country?
We want a firm declaration from the Chancellor that he will no longer screw down the faces of those who have retired, but will accept the decision of the House to give them a better standard of living in their old age.

Mr. Healey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I can master the wave of nausea which swept over me when I heard the hypocritical humbug coming from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I must tell the House that I recognise that the Conservative Opposition have voted for a substantial increase in public expenditure. They were supported by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and his colleagues from Northern Ireland. I hope that we shall have no more hypocritical claptrap from the Opposition benches in future about the need to keep public expenditure under control.
The House will know that for three and a half years the Leader of the Opposition, in circumstances which he claimed were very much more propitious, economically, did not lift a finger to bring about the result for which he and his colleagues have voted tonight. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not prepared to see the public sector borrowing requirement increased by this vote. Therefore, I shall ensure that the necessary revenue is raised from those who are best able to provide it. I hope that I shall be able to count on the right hon. Gentleman's honour in support of any measures which I shall introduce to that end.

Mr. John Peyton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an abuse of the procedure of the House. If I may say so, with the greatest respect to both the Leader of the Opposition and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think they have gone too far. It is the custom to allow a business question. One allows one question and an answer, but it is wrong for the House to expect me to allow hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House to go into the merits.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been firm on this point on earlier occasions with hon. Members.

Mr. Peyton: I wish to raise a different point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have taken exactly the same attitude with parties on either side of the House. It has been my practice to allow only one question and one answer, and, with respect, both the question and the answer went a good deal wider than they ought to have done.

Mr. Peyton: Mr. Speaker, I apologise. I realise your difficulties. However, I rise on a different point of order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was heard distinctly to use the words "bloody humbug"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Member was applying those sentiments to another right hon. Member, it is out of order. If the words were applied to an argument, I deprecate the epithet very much. The noun is not out of order.

Mr. Healey: I withdraw the word "bloody" and substitute "revolting".

Clause 6

NON-CONTRIBUTORY INVALIDITY PENSION

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 6, line 1, leave out from 'where' to end of line 4 and insert
'she is incapable of performing normal household duties'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 7, in page 6, line 27 [Clause 6], after 'work', insert
'as incapable of performing normal household duties'.

Mrs. Castle: After this classic demonstration of Tory humbuggery, perhaps we may now return to some of the realities of sustained Socialist progress as regards social services.
The effect of these amendments is to embody the provision for a disabled housewife's benefit in the Bill in the appropriate form, namely, by making it payable out of the Consolidated Fund instead of out of the National Insurance Fund. Therefore, the purpose of this clause remains unchanged, but the means of financing becomes more appropriate.
I know why my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) chose this form of financing in moving his amendment in Standing Committee. I congratulate him on his ingenuity. However, we all agree that the proper form of finance for the non-contributory benefit is the Consolidated Fund and not the National Insurance Fund, because it is out of the Consolidated Fund that we take the other non-contributory benefits: the attendance allowance, the old person's pension and so on.
In these two amendments therefore we are embodying a disabled housewife's benefit in legislation a few months earlier than we otherwise would have done. I am sure it makes my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles happier to feel that he will at least see this measure on the Statute Book when the Bill has passed through all its stages. He has merely anticipated the intention of the Government by a few months, because, as I said during the

Second Reading debate on the Bill, it was the Government's intention to legislate in this Session of Parliament, if at all possible, for a disabled housewife's benefit. We are not introducing any principle that was not already in the Government's policy and the legislative programme schedule for this Session. My hon. Friend knows that this Government did not need any convincing about the case for a disabled housewive's benefit.
I was immensely flattered, when I read the reports of the debates in the Standing Committee, to find the extent to which hon. Members on both sides quoted from the report to Parliament on social security for disabled persons and quoted with approval the moving references in that document to the difficulties of the disabled housewife and to the need to deal with her case urgently. From the testimony of both sides, therefore, it was clear that hon. Members were not only pressing at an open door but were merely underlining what the Government themselves had already said.
What the House has never understood and what those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee did not understand is why we proposed to deal with the disabled housewife's benefit separately from the non-contributory invalidity pension. The reason is that a disabled housewife's benefit is an entirely different benefit from the NCIP and embodies a novel principle. The non-contributory invalidity pension is itself a breakthrough in provision for the disabled. But it is not a benefit for disablement as such. It is a benefit for incapacity for work—in other words for paid employment. The NCIP is merely a non-contributory form of the existing invalidity pension in the National Insurance Scheme.
We have had a long experience—my staff in the Department and the medical profession—in dealing with benefits based on incapacity for work. That is why we said that, with the co-operation of our staff, it should be possible to put the non-contributory invalidity pension into payment some months before the end of the 1975–76 financial year. That is why it got priority. We were on familiar territory. We were merely extending an existing contributory benefit into the noncontributory field. It was a simple process, and we could do it quickly. It


was not a matter of trying to establish orders of priority between the needs of different disabled groups. It was administrative needs which dictated the priority, because the housewife's benefit embodied a new principle—that of a benefit not merely for incapacity for work but for the performance of normal household duties.
This is completely new to social security, and it involves therefore the working out of entirely new assessments and criteria. It is not just a matter of getting a medical certificate of incapacity for work. It is more complicated. The inability to do housework is less of a purely medical question, and it may require non-medical evidence—for example, in Switzerland a report from a social assistant may be required. It is for these reasons that we wanted more time to examine the criteria, although, as I said on Second Reading, we were hoping to legislate in this Session of Parliament on the disabled housewife's benefit.
10.30 p.m.
If the amendments are accepted, all the criteria and the commencement date will have to be set out in regulations. Including the benefit in this Bill rather than a later one does not of itself solve the operational difficulties. I cannot therefore guarantee that it will be possible to introduce it at an earlier date than that to which we have urgently been working. We have never taken such a criterion on board before. Our staff must take it on in addition to a whole catalogue of new benefits. I do not think the House realises the extent to which, in the last nine or ten months, we have been pouring additional work upon the staff of the Department—upratings, new benefits and the additions planned for April of this year.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: A great deal of work has been done on disability in industry and other fields. Surely some of that is relevant. Is my right hon. Friend correct in presenting this as a new problem? Surely some of the parameters of disability are connected. Can she not relate them, rather than start from scratch?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend is right we have a good deal of experience about disability, but disability in social security

provision up to now has been related to incapacity to do paid employment. The formula of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and, with slight modifications, the formula in the amendments, is that of a woman incapable of performing normal household duties. That is a test we have never tried to apply before. If a disabled housewife is bedridden, there is no difficulty, but there are problems in deciding what incapacitates to do housework. Many severely disabled people are not necessarily incapable of doing work—they may earn high salaries—but they may be incapable of performing household duties. One of the difficulties is that this is a new criterion.

Mr. James Dempsey: When my right hon. Friend talks of the test being incapacity to do household work, is she restricting the benefit to a disabled person who is housebound? Would a disabled housewife who is a registered blind person be entitled to the benefit?

Mrs. Castle: I can give an assurance straight away. Of course it does not necessarily mean that someone must be housebound. But equally, the point about blindness that my hon. Friend has raised is something involving exactly the criteria about which we must argue. I think that every hon. Member knows that if one gives a new benefit on a basis which is not accepted by the public generally as being fair, one can create all sorts of new claims and new difficulties—for instance, the person excluded who comes along with very great indignation to question the criteria.
But the criteria must be worked out. They will now have to be embodied in regulations. We wanted a little more time to work them out, discuss them and embody them in the Bill. But as has been said, a Bill in the hand is worth 20 White Papers in the bush. However, the criteria have not been agreed.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has brought this matter forward and that it is now to be put in legislative form. What worries me is that Megan du Boisson, who helped to found DIG many years ago, myself and people such as her and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), went to my right hon. Friend's Department years ago and told her about these


difficulties. We said "One of the major things we require is a disability allowance for the housewife who cannot work." It frightens me that in Committee I was still being told that the Government had not done any work on criteria. It appals me, because these are the people at greatest risk. I beg my right hon. Friend to bring this thing forward. In DIG and all the voluntary organisations she will find a superb body of people with knowledge who will feed her all the information she wants and will augment the lack of knowledge, perhaps, in her Department. I hope that she will give a little more on this matter.

Mrs. Castle: I think that instead of constant interruptions it would be better if these points were made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the disabled has been in consultation with DIG already about this problem and would be willing to deal with it in winding up the debate.
It is no good my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) telling me what he asked my Department to do "years ago". I was not in the Department years ago. I was in the Department only nine months ago.
When I went to the Department—I say this in challenge once again to Tory humbuggery—there was not a word or a letter about preparations made for any disabled housewife's benefit. They never dreamed of it until we mentioned it.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: rose—

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman can reply when he comes to speak. He has his chance coming. I am not winding up. He can tell us what preparations were made to establish criteria for a disabled housewife's benefit. It is absolutely absurd.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Lady to imply that she has seen previous papers when she knows perfectly well that such a thing is not allowed in the Department?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): That is not a point of order.

Mrs. Castle: I intend to ignore it, because the hon. Lady knows perfectly well that if the work had been done I would have been told, without the disclosure of previous papers.
No criteria were available to me. Until we presented our paper to the House, which we did ahead of our statutory obligation date, which was last October, hon. Members of the Opposition had not begun to think out a policy. We had to start from scratch.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Oh yes, we had.

Mrs. Castle: Only when we announced our paper did they rush out a document saying what they were thinking about doing.

Mr. Boscawen: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Castle: No. The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to reply shortly. No doubt he can say what he likes. The simple fact is that this miraculous disablement policy of the Conservatives was rushed out at a moment's notice on the very day we produced our report and the Press statement committing ourselves to the range of benefits which is now embodied in the Bill.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Rubbish!

Mrs. Castle: I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, who I am sure understands this, that in a short period we have had to work very fast over the whole disablement field. That is the reason why we are still going over virgin territory in trying to work out the very novel criteria for a disabled housewife's benefit.
I therefore say to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles that he has the great satisfaction of knowing that his amendment is embodied in the Bill. In accepting the amendment the Government are also anticipating the rate at which the benefit for the disabled housewife will be paid. That is an achievement that my hon. Friend can hold unto himself for comfort and righteousness. It could be argued that, in keeping with the logic of our Conservative predecessors' scheme for old persons' pensions, the disabled housewife should get only the lower rate since her benefit could be said, by definition, to be a dependant's benefit. We are not


concerned with someone capable of working or doing household duties. I referred to this precedent of the old persons' pension scheme in the report I made to the House.
We believe that the new benefit should be sui generis. It stands on its own. We are concerned here with in many cases people who have always been too disabled to work outside or inside the home. No one can say whether such a disabled housewife who is totally or almost totally incapacitated would have been a breadwinner or a dependant any more than they can say it about a man in that position. Therefore, it is right, above all in International Women's Year, that we should give disabled housewives equality. We are creating a benefit which the recipient gets as of right, a non means-tested benefit which deals with a particular human problem in a way which is completely separate from any of our previous security developments.
If the House accepts the amendment all that will remain will be for us to legislate for the mobility allowance which we hope to be able to put into law before very long. It also only remains to us to provide through our better pensions scheme the earnings-related invalidity pension for the people for whom DIG has fought for so long. With that done the package of measures outlined in the document last September will have been completed. Of course, DIG will go on pressing for more, and so will many of us. I am not pretending that this is the final answer to the needs of the disabled, but from my experience of DIG and the conversations I have had with members of it, I know that that organisation is in no doubt that by this package we shall have completed a remarkable breakthrough for the disabled in a remarkably short time, and we shall have done it during a period of unprecedented economic difficulty. It certainly does not lie in the mouths of Conservative Members to utter anything but words of congratulation to us—I hope this time with a measure of humility.
10.45 p.m.
All that the Conservatives' election manifesto promised was a modest start with a new benefit, and even that promise was coupled with the proviso that they would do it as resources became available. Their manifesto was governed by one

overriding, dominant phrase. After the demonstration we have just had from the Opposition, it is worth reminding the House of what they said in the introduction to their manifesto:
Only as we overcome our economic difficulties will it be possible to carry through the proposals in the second part of this Manifesto which involve expenditure. These proposals therefore are all subject to this important qualification.
No hon. Member can pretend that the country has overcome its economic difficulties. Therefore, our opponents' alibi would have been complete, and I have no doubt that it would have been used. We have said that the economic difficulties remain unresolved, but we do not believe that we can resolve them by sacrificing the urgent needs of the weakest members of our society. We do not believe that we can solve them by sacrificing the disabled.
In nine months we have already proved that what matters is not words but our deeds.

Mr. Boscawen: I had thought that we could get through a debate about such a human subject as the disabled housewife without the stink of political vitriol coming from the Government benches as it has tonight. I found it disgusting. It did not happen once from either side in all the long weeks we sat in Committee. I am disappointed in what the Secretary of State said.
We were relieved that the right hon. Lady carried her colours off the field and accepted the verdict of the Standing Committee, which was to include the disabled housewife in the new non-contributory invalidity pension. That was not the Government's intention when they introduced the new benefit. As the right hon. Lady said, they did not intend to bring it in until the 1976–77 Session.
We believe that the Government missed the essential purpose of any disablement income scheme by leaving out the disabled housewife. That purpose must be to keep the family of a severely disabled person together, by enabling the disabled person to stay in the same home, instead of having to move into an institution. The purpose must be to keep marriages intact. Of all those families, the ones at the greatest risk are those where the disabled person happens to be the mother


or the wife. There is no doubt about that on either side of the House, except on the Government Front Bench.
It needed a high degree of anger within and without the House and amongst all the pressure groups which take an interest in disabled people to bring about the amendments which the right hon. Lady seemed to claim as her own this evening. Most of all, it was the pressure and the speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House that brought about the amendments that will, we hope, bring the disabled housewife a higher benefit than she would otherwise have received, and at an earlier date.
Those of us who heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) about the frustration day and night and year after year in homes where there is a disabled mother will not forget that experience. Those who know of the courage that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) has shown in working to bring an income as of right into the homes of severely disabled people will respect him and back him up when he seeks to help those very people in the way that brought about the amendments. That was not done through the work of the right hon. Lady.
We also respect the work done behind the scenes by our friends in the Disablement Income Group. Some of them are represented here by my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker).

Mrs. Jeger: They are represented on this side of the House.

Mr. Boscawen: Yes, Members on both sides of the House take a great interest in the work that they perform. It is due to them and their parliamentary representative that we are having this debate. It is their parliamentary skill that went into the drafting of the amendment that got round the Money Resolution which the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends drafted so that we should make no amendments that enables us to have this debate. That is why my hon. Friends share the disgust that is felt by some Labour Members at the way in which the Government have tried to prevent back benchers introducing a human amendment.

Mrs. Castle: Humbugs.

Mr. Boscawen: It does not lie in the mouth of the right hon. Lady to call us humbugs when it comes to talking about the disabled. It was because of the representations that we received from those outside the House in the disablement lobby and from some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh, that we introduced as a party before the last election our policy for the disabled in a paper entitled "Disability Policy: The Next Stage". It was presented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). In that paper we committed our party in September last, as an immediate priority, to provide cash benefits for the quarter of a million who are so seriously disabled, together with the disabled married women who cannot look after their homes and families. We intended to bring that in and we were aware of the sort of cost it would involve, and we made that clear. It is true that at the time we brought it in the rate was a little lower than that at which the Government have now introduced it because since then there has been an uprating, but as we were committed to a six-monthly uprating that rate could have been made known.
As one who carried out work in the study group, among hon. Friends headed by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), I know that all its members were adamant that we would include the disabled married housewife. We faced up to the administrative difficulties because we believed that it would be difficult to establish the criteria on the lines followed by the Government in their Bill. Therefore, upstairs in Committee we sought to introduce an amendment to base the test of eligibility, not on the incapacity to work, but on the degree of disability which the person concerned suffers.
We foresaw considerable difficulties with a new benefit in testing the eligibility of somebody like a housewife as to whether she is incapable of work. What does one mean by "incapable of work"? Is she to be incapable of doing the washing, of shopping, or of many duties the housewife has to do? We believed that the snags were such that the test of eligibility would have to be based on the


degree of disability. Surely we have plenty of experience of being able to assess that matter in civil cases, in the war disablement context, and also in the work carried out by the Department in respect of the invalidity pension. On those grounds we believe that the idea that the new benefit would exclude the disabled housewife because of administrative difficulties was wrong, and we felt we should push hard against that attitude.
The concession upstairs in Committee which was wrung out of the Government has established another point—namely, that the housewife now unable to do normal household duties as defined in the amendment merits equal financial treatment as anybody else who is incapable of working. It has been our information—and most of our information of what goes on in the right hon. Lady's Department seems to come by leak or by rumour—that the reason why the disabled housewife was to be kept out of the Bill and put in at a later stage was that she was to get a benefit at the lower rate of the attendance allowance—namely, £6·20 instead of £6·90 per week. If that had happened, we believe that would have been intolerable and unacceptable for anyone suffering from a disability—in other words, it was wrong, that we should introduce a lower rate for people who need help more than any other group and whose homes are perhaps some of the poorest in the country.
Therefore, we can say that we achieved something positive in Committee. Although we may not have achieved everything, we have achieved the higher rate of the non-contributory invalidity pension and the right hon. Lady was good enough to admit it.
11.0 p.m.
Furthermore, the House may think that, having wrung this concession from the Government, the official view that the housewife is a non-worker, or a second-class worker, has been killed stone dead, and that in future the housewife will be on equal terms with any other worker.
I hope that the other great Government Departments will take note of what has happened through the Committee having passed those amendments. This is an important point, and I hope we shall come back to it again and again.
The House has not heard from the

Secretary of State whether she intends to do anything about getting a move on in the Ministry to bring forward this benefit more quickly than would otherwise have been the case. We are extremely worried about what she said just now when she intimated that despite what we have done, and despite the will of the Committee upstairs, the disabled housewife will not get benefit any sooner than if the right hon. Lady had had her own way and left this out.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman who winds up the debate will make clear that the Government are all set to obey the wishes of the Committee and the House and to bring this in at the earliest possible date, not holding it back, but using extra resources, if necessary, to do it.

Mr. David Mudd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it acceptable to the procedure of this honourable House that the right hon. Lady at whom specific charges are levelled should take it on herself, having consulted the Chief Whip, to withdraw from this honourable House at such a time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Boscawen: The right hon. Lady disgusted us when she used her political venom at the beginning on a subject which is not suitable for political venom and, from the Government benches, it is disappointing and harmful to the reputation of the House.
We are highly sceptical when we hear a suggestion that the Government did not introduce the disabled married housewife's allowance into a non-contributory invalidity pension on grounds of cost. We know that it was not so, because they have been able to do it. We have found that when they were pushed hard enough they were able to do it.
They could not have gone back to their hon. Friends and introduced a Bill to spend an extra £1,000 million on extra food subsidies and at the same time squeeze some small sum out of this group. We are therefore extremely sceptical when we hear that they cannot find the cash and do not wish to increase the borrowing requirement by this small amount.
These amendments are merely tidying up what was done, and wrung from the Government in Committee. We accept them, with the proviso that they get on with it as quickly as possible and introduce the payment to these deserving people at the first possible opportunity.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am delighted to welcome the Government amendments replacing mine and putting forward a better set of proposals for the disabled housewife. I am sure that the Department would want this proviso in the Bill at this time. I have certain reservations about the time-scale. My hon. Friend who has special responsibility for the disabled may consider me remiss if I do not start tabling Questions almost at once asking him to speed up the implementation of this reform.
We might have had a better discussion because there is an undoubted body of experience on the Committee. I again make my plea to the Treasury regarding Money Resolutions. If it had not been too clever by half we might have had the opportunity to discuss in depth some of the difficulties which the Department will face with these new benefits and assessments. We would have had within the confines of the Committee representatives of the disabled who could have fed us briefs aimed at further polishing the amendments to improve these provisions.
I have a funny feeling that the Department is making rather too much fuss about the administrative difficulties of definition. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) had it right when he said that we would have been prepared to accept a rough and ready category initially and allowed the Minister to polish the provisions as they went along. We did this, as back benchers, when we pressured the Government on the subject of the attendance allowances. They have been improved considerably since, although there is still room for more improvement. We ought to be consulting the disabled.
Although I and a substantial number of hon. Members in Committee tabled amendments, it was, in the end, a wheelchair victim who found a way round the cunning of the Treasury. There is a

message here and it is that we have in the disabled a most viable element which can work for the benefit of the economy. One disabled constituent of mine, who has recently died, used to say "I wish people would not think that because I am disabled I am daft". Some of the most intelligent people I have come across have been severely handicapped people who used wheelchairs.
Although we have made assessments of the number of people who require this benefit, let me surprise hon. Members by saying that I should like to see the number reduced to nil. If we were to have an intelligent application of technology to this problem we could compensate people for their disability and allow these unfortunate women to run their own homes. We should spend a little more time on providing services for them, such as advanced Possum systems, and other devices which would give them independence. In the long term the Government might well save money.
I am grateful to all who have given me help in this struggle. The great thing about the occasion is that it has been a back-bench victory. The Front Benches were not involved. They were shadowboxing while we got on with the debate. We are glad that we have won and that the Government have seen sense. We are grateful to all those nameless people outside who helped us. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Services will be delighted with this. I compliment the Department for having got this through the Treasury, because that was where the difficulty lay.
I acknowledge that there will be severe administrative problems. I urge Ministers to consult the disabled groups, particularly DIG and the Central Council for the Disabled about these. They can augment the work needed to be done in the Department and will willingly do so. But for me 1977–78 is not a good target date. I will be flooding the Order Paper with Questions with regular monotony until I have that date brought down to something more acceptable. We are talking about those who are at greatest risk. Where the risk is greatest effort must be maximised.

Mr. David Price: This should be a happy occasion, because some of us have


been working for many years to achieve what has been consummated tonight. It was a back-bench victory in the Standing Committee and it has been accepted by the Government, who have produced amendments of their own. The reason that our amendments were not perhaps as elegant in parliamentary drafting terms as they might have been was that we had to get round the difficult point of the Money Resolution and the Long Title. The difficulty was overcome, not by our ingenuity, but by the ingenuity of one of the leading members of the Disabled Income Group.
I therefore regret the Secretary of State's ill-mannered and ungenerous approach. She was not on her best form tonight. I warn her that the disabled particularly object to being treated as a party football, kicked from one side of the House to the other. Over many years a number of us have been very active in the all-party group, headed by the Minister with responsibility for the disabled. This is a subject on which we should forget about party—because that is what we do in practice. Let us not try to score points off each other. We have had a back-bench victory tonight because a good deal more generosity has been shown on the back benches than on the Government Front Bench. The kindest thing that I can say is that the right hon. Lady was going through a Walter Mitty neurosis, as we all do from time to time. Let us leave it there.
I should like to help the right hon. Lady and the Department. In Committee we offered her help, both personally and from the organisations representing the disabled. My credentials are twofold. As most hon. Members know, I am a member of a family one of whom is, and has been for many years, severely disabled. I am also a works study engineer. I think that those two considerations give me some qualification to speak and to offer the Department a little advice.
In Committee the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues made heavy weather of the difficulties of defining the criteria. They spoke about the incapacity to do household work as against the capacity to earn one's living, as if the two things were different. They are different only in the sense that one is paid for the work one does for an employer, whereas the housewife is not paid by

her husband; she simply gets her housekeeping money. But other than that the two things have a great deal in common. A disabled person's capacity to work varies enormously with the work and where his skills and training lie. If a stevedore has a spinal injury, he loses his capacity to work. If an accountant has a similar injury, his capacity to work is greater than that of the stevedore.
The commonality of work which a housewife has to do in the home is a combination of physical work and brain work, together with management of the home. One may retain the capacity to manage, but one loses, according to the degree of one's disability, the capacity to carry out the physical work. As I said in an intervention in the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading, there need be no argument about the incapacity of a substantial number of disabled housewives because of the degree of their incapacity.
If one is in a wheelchair, as my wife is, one is totally incapable of scrubbing floors and of getting up a step-ladder. If one is totally blind one's ability to fulfil domestic work is enormously restricted. We are dealing with about 40,000 women, and there would be no difficulty in knowing what is the disability of 20,000 of them. I grant that with the next category of 20,000 or 30,000 there are certain difficulties. The Department, having gone through the experience of the higher and the lower rate attendance allowances, will have vast experience of incapacity to work. It should not be too difficult, with the help of work study engineers to analyse the Department's experience of incapacity to work and apply it to disabled housewives.
11.15 p.m.
I suggest to the right hon. Lady and the Department that simple approach. It is done in other fields. It is done, above all, by the Treasury in looking at pay, and it can be done equally for disabled housewives. I should be delighted to give any help I can. I have made that offer before, and I make it in no partisan sense. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and the societies concerned with the disabled would all be delighted to help, as indeed would professional


organisations dealing with work study problems and all who have been involved in working out standards and parameters for disabled living. There are several specialist organisations and practitioners in that field.
The right hon. Lady and her Department are making heavy weather of this. I shall be asking questions, but rather than doing that I prefer to ask the right hon. Lady and her Department to get in touch with some of us who live with disability every day of our lives. It is not a new problem, and no new criteria have to be established. I know the criteria. I live with them every day of my life. I make that offer not in a partisan spirit but in a spirit of happiness and generosity, which should be our spirit tonight when at last something is being done for disabled housewives.

Mr. Dempsey: I briefly intervene to raise the question of a certain category of disabled persons in my constituency—and I am sure throughout the country—who do not receive the fair consideration that is their due. Before doing so, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and her colleagues on their initiative in introducing these amendments and approving in principle the payment to disabled housewives. During the election I stressed the importance of this provision should a Labour Government be returned, and I am very happy that a Labour Minister and a Labour Government are introducing this system of remuneration for these unfortunate members of our society.
I have noticed time and again that after we have discussed matters of this kind in the House, argued about principles and come to a decision, the implementation of that decision has not operated in the way I had expected. After debating the problems of the disabled I have left the Chamber fully convinced that certain provisions would be implemented, but I have found that local authority officers were applying an entirely different interpretation of the provisions from that which I believed to be correct when we debated the matter.
It is with this end in view that I am so anxious to try, to the best of my ability, to impress my right hon. Friend of the importance of having flexible and

generous criteria for this system of payment, and I give an illustration to indicate why I speak on the matter at this late hour.
Recently, provision was introduced for parking discs for the disabled. It meant that a disabled person with such a disc could park anywhere near his work or wherever he was going. But I discovered that when a totally blind self-employed constituent had to journey to Glasgow in order to conduct his business from premises to premises and house to house, he was denied a parking disc. The result was that, on some occasions, his car had to be parked half a mile or so from where he was going to work, and he had to cart his bag of tools on his back all the way and across dangerous streets, the interpretation being that he was not sufficiently disabled to have the privilege of a parking disc. When we were discussing that provision in the House, I never thought that it could be interpreted in such a way, but I found that other local authorities in Scotland were doing exactly the same thing and I took the matter up with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to ensure that the criteria of disability which she plans will be sufficiently flexible to allow a registered blind housewife to qualify for this payment. The blind housewife may be able to put a vacuum cleaner to the carpet or stand at the sink and wash dishes, but there are many other duties she cannot do. For example, for her to approach a gas stove or certain electrical apparatus or other heating devices can mean grave danger not only to herself but to the home.
It is with this kind of thing in mind that I appeal to my right hon. Friend sympathetically to consider declaring the registered totally blind housewife as an individual entitled to this disability payment. By doing so, she would not only be making history among that category of disabled persons, but would inspire them with confidence that she and the Government are fully determined that they shall enjoy the advantages of this radical innovation, the payment of this new form of disability allowance.

Mrs. Chalker: I rise at this late hour to review a few of the points made in the debate. First, it is important that we should congratulate the hon. Member for


Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), whose spirit throughout this battle has been notable. He has not flagged once in his persuasive efforts on the Treasury through the Under-Secretary of State for the Disabled, in order to get this provision.
It is important also to remember that we have now got over the problem we had as the Bill was drafted, in that a disabled housewife who happened to be a male would have received the non-contributory invalidity pension, whereas the disabled housewife who was female would not. Thank goodness, that differential has gone. The right hon. Lady herself mentioned International Women's Year, and I am glad of this first step towards providing for non-discrimination against women. It is vitally important.
I understand many of the things which have been said about categorising the degree of incapacity to do housework. During the time in which I have tried to help the disabled I have gradually built up a wealth of experience, which has not been gained inside the House, since I have been here barely 11 months, but has been gained outside the House. The result of such experience is available. Whether it is on the right file in the right cabinet at the Department of Health and Social Security I do not know, but it is there for the Government to use. The Government will be pressed to use every available aid to put the benefit for the disabled housewife into action, not just a few months earlier but a good deal sooner than the Government had probably intended under a separate Bill. With a united non-partisan effort hon. Members can make this benefit available to the disabled housewife at the same time as the NCIP. That may be an enormous challenge. However, I have never known the House of Commons to shrink from a real challenge when helping people who are less able to help themselves.
We know that the rate of benefit would be higher than would have been the case if it had been introduced by means of a separate Bill. It will not worry me if we have to give up a little bit of the food subsidy, or something else, which two-thirds or three-quarters of the population can do without, if we give disabled housewives the benefit which I hey so richly deserve.
I know that there are deep feelings on this issue. I assure the right hon. Lady that, whatever she may have said earlier this evening, there is plenty of evidence to contradict her words. Perhaps it is the wish of every Member not just to see the disabled housewife receive the benefit at a due date but to cut the cackling we have heard about this matter in the House and make sure that the benefit is there for the disabled housewife to use as soon as possible.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The House is much less crowded now than it was when the previous group of amendments was discussed. I believe that those with a sense of history will see that these amendments are of more abiding importance in terms of fundamental social rights.
This is a debate for stayers. There are many Members on both sides who have taken a sustained and sincere interest in legislating for the disabled housewife at the earliest posible date. We are talking of the daunting problems of some of the so-called "left-outs" of the National Insurance system. My right hon. Friend has warmly acknowledged the sincerity and persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). I know that he senses the pleasure which my right hon. Friend and I derive from our presentation of these amendments to the House of Commons.
My right hon. Friend rightly emphasised that this is a brand new benefit which is proposed at a time of unprecedented economic difficulty. Some Opposition Members have said that they dislike any suggestion of party animus in debates on disablement. I work day by day with my right hon. Friend. No one has worked harder than my right hon. Friend to advance the date of the introduction of a disabled housewife's allowance. She feels very strongly that the claims of the disabled housewife are compelling and urgent. I hope that the Opposition will accept that in my experience of working with her, she is a person who wants passionately to see the first ever benefit specially for disabled housewives at the earliest possible date.
11.30 p.m.
Help for the disabled housewife has long been one of the priority demands of organisations which speak for the disabled. The Disablement Income Group


itself was founded by two disabled housewives—Megan Du Boisson and Bent Thornberry. These amendments coming from the Government will be regarded by the DIG and other organisations representative of severely handicapped people as a further important step forward.
Tribute has been rightly paid again tonight to Mr. Peter Large, the honorary parliamentary spokesman of the Disablement Income Group. The House may like to know that I have already had discussions with Peter Large, Betty Veal and Stewart Lyon of the DIG about the problems of introducing this new benefit.
It may be argued that we have not done enough. But we have done a great deal, and we have done much that has never been publicised.
The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) said that this was a deeply human subject. He referred to the importance of keeping the disabled family together. We all accept the importance of the concept of the disabled family. If one member of a family is disabled, it follows that the family as a whole is involved in the problems of disablement.
The hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise that he said something which we emphasised strongly in our White Paper of 13th September 1974. We said there that there was a risk of marriages breaking under all the physical, emotional and financial strains, and that a wife with a very severe degree of incapacity could have a most serious impact on the household budget and on the family's ability to stay together. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that in drafting the White Paper, we sought to present a document which would be of lasting value. I have had important consultations already with the Disablement Income Group—and there will be further consultations—about the problems of introducing this entirely new benefit.
I was asked when the new benefit would be payable. I must stress that there are staffing problems. Then there are the problems of defining entitlement and of certification, because we must ensure equity between one housewife and another. Again, there is the problem of medical manpower. There are real administrative problems, and they will take

time to solve. But we shall introduce the allowance as soon as we can consistent with the making of proper administrative arrangements.
The attendance allowance was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, who has great experience in these matters. All of us with experience of the attendance allowance know that there was for a long time—to some extent, there is still—the complaint that people with the same disabilities were being treated differently in different localities. I would not want a benefit as important as this to be introduced with defective administrative arrangements. We shall move as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) who has as much experience as any hon. Member of the realities of living with a disabled family, hoped that there would be no party animus in debates about disablement. He gave the impression that the Government may have been forced into this position. Hansard of 21st November 1974 shows that my right hon. Friend repeatedly emphasised that we hoped to legislate for the disabled housewife this Session. The Standing Committee discussed the matter in great detail and we welcome the keen interest which was shown in the mechanics of introducing the benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles will know that we rejoice in being able to present these amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) referred to the particular problems of the totally blind housewife and said that there was a moral to be drawn from the orange badge scheme under Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. We intend this year to widen the application of that section to include blind people.

Mr. Dempsey: Thank you.

Mr. Morris: We shall also be introducing—this applies to Scotland, England and Wales—other improvements to the scheme to help the disabled driver and the driver of a disabled passenger.
I should have liked to have put what we are doing in a wider context—

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman did not mention Northern Ireland. Is that included in the scheme?

Mr. Morris: The Act applies to the Province, but perhaps I could speak to the hon. Member later on what is rather a technical matter.
I was saying that I would have liked to put this matter into the wider context of the other things we have been seeking to do to extend the welfare and improve the status of disabled people. I have read in the Press recently of the Government's announcement of a "£25 million package" for the disabled. The April 1975 uprating alone will put £110 million a year into the pockets of those receiving benefits for chronic sickness or disability. In the July 1974 uprating, over £150 million a year was added to these same benefits. In addition, 2½ million retirement pensioners with some disability are benefiting and will benefit even further from higher pension rates.
I should have liked to list what we have done in terms of the mobility allowance, and in terms of taking VAT off aids and appliances for the severely disabled; a decision we have taken about an Institute for Hearing Research; and what we have done about wider exemption from vehicle excise duty for drivers of disabled passengers. But that would be stretching the debate.
In conclusion, for disabled people this is a debate of historic importance. We are now legislating for people who were the "left outs" of the National Insurance system. We are justifying those who have said over many years that a great wrong has been done to disabled housewives. I hope that the House will warmly welcome these amendments.

Mr. Boscawen: By leave of the House. The Opposition welcome the generosity and sincerity with which the Minister responsible for the disabled has spoken. We understand and respect the fact that he will do his utmost to bring about these benefits so that they may be paid as early as possible. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the strong feeling on all sides of the House and outside it for this group of "left outs", as he calls them, to be helped as soon as he can possibly do so.
In that spirit, I ask my hon. Friends to accept the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 6, line 27, after 'work', insert:
'as incapable of performing normal household duties'.—[Mrs. Castle.]

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, Amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 36, leave out from 'sixty-five' to end of line 38.
This is a minor drafting amendment. We are now advised that the words which we seek to delete from subsection (8) of Clause 6 are unnecessary. The reason is that the application of the definition of "incapable of work" will be covered in the regulations relating to the non-contributory invalidity pension, which will be made under the powers conferred by subsection (6) of Clause 6.
The amendment does not alter our intention to use the existing definition of incapacity for work—incorporating, in the case of a housewife, incapacity to perform normal household duties. The definition already in legislaton has long applied to the other benefits that are paid on the basis of incapacity for work—including the existing contributory invalidity pension—and is equally apposite for the non-contributory invalidity pension, which is the non-contributory version of the invalidity pension.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Boscawen: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 7, line 12, leave out from 'employed' to end of line 15.
The Opposition welcome the clause. It is a small innovation in terms of cash, but it does something that has long been needed for a very small group of people—namely, those devoted daughters and nieces, and friends we hope, who have looked after a parent or a disabled relative over many years at great cost and even hardship to themselves.
We have some reservations about the clause and the delay in bringing this in. As the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said so well in Committee, devoted daughters in their thousands are giving their services now. Now their


needs should be recognised. They should get their benefit straight away.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the benefit does not go only to the blood relation. We want to see it go to those few cases where a person, living perhaps next door or in the same house, is looking after a friend who is most severely disabled. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to say who will receive the benefit. We understood in Committee that the Minister of State was prepared to take another look at the clause to see whether he could produce a more precise definition of those eligible. Will the benefit be restricted to blood relations or will it be extended to friends who care for severely disabled persons.
In some respects the act of the friend could be even more noble than that of the devoted daughter who has given up so much for so many years to look after a parent. That point was made in Committee by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers). To leave out this smaller group of people would be most undesirable. We are sorry that since the Minister said in Committee he would look at the matter again he has not come up with an amendment to meet the point.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) offered the best description when he said that there had been a lack of generosity between the Front Benches today. I hope we can repair that omission now by having the amendment accepted.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I understand the importance that the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) attaches to his amendment. In Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that we should look at this proposition again before the Report stage.
I think that there is very little difference between us on this. The important words are "at the outset". We say that those who are referred to as relatives are the first who will benefit. The hon. Gentleman referred to the "devoted daughters in their thousands" who give service to disabled parents. I recall being pressed in the House last year by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who has taken a great interest in this matter, to accept the case of the National Council for the

Single Woman and Her Dependants. I said then that we would look at the possibility of introducing an allowance for these stay-at-home daughters. However, there are also stay-at-home sons who have to give up paid employment to look after a disabled relative.
When I said that there was very little difference between us on this matter I did so because we are not entirely excluding from the allowance the people to whom the hon. Member referred. We are saying that at the outset we shall be making the allowance payable to certain people who are close relatives.
I could go at some length into the reasons for the position we have adopted. We have carefully considered whether ICA should be extended to non-relatives from the very beginning. However well-meaning the intention behind the amendment, and however great our sympathy for the people involved, we must face the facts. ICA, like the non-contributory invalidity pension for disabled housewives, is a brand-new, untried benefit. It is without precedent. We do not have a settled pattern of administration to guide us. We do not know how it will work out in practice, or what our initial intake of claims for relatives will be, how many claims will entail detailed inquiries, or how many will give rise to continuing payment.
It is precisely because of those problems that we want to start on a proper administrative—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman's present arguments are good reasons for introducing the allowance at the same time as the other benefits. Then the Department would gain the experience on which to build. The Minister would be meeting the important point raised by the Council for the Single Woman and Her Dependants, which wants the allowance now, when the other benefit is coming in.

Mr. Morris: Does the hon. Lady mean the non-contributory invalidity pension for disabled housewives?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Yes.

Mr. Morris: There are different administrative problems in paying the two benefits. I said earlier that we want no avoidable delay in making the new benefits available.
I have read the comments made in Standing Committee by Conservative Members. I ask the hon. Member for Wells to accept that there is not much difference between us, and that we are starting in the way we propose simply to ensure that we give the new allowance a good send-off, without inviting unnecessary and avoidable administrative problems at the beginning.

Mr. Boscawen: I should have liked to say that we were pleased with the Minister's answer, but we are not. It is very disappointing. The hon. Gentleman is not making the new benefit payable for another two years. He has plenty of time to work out administrative methods of meeting the problems faced by both the near relatives and the friends. There

Division No. 79]
AYES
[11.55 p.m.


Arnold, Tom
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(Spelthorne)
Hayhoe, Barney
Paisley, Rev Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Henderson, Douglas
Pardoe, John


Baker, Kenneth
Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil


Banks, Robert
Hooson, Emlyn
Pattie, Geoffrey


Benyon, W.
Hordern, Peter
Penhaligon, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Howell Ralph (North Norfolk)
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hurd, Douglas
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bradford, Rev Robert
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Raison, Timothy


Brotherton, Michael
James, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Reid, George


Budgen, Nick
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bulmer, Esmond
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Carson, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kirk, Peter
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rilklnd, Malcolm


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cockcroft, John
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cope, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Corrie, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Crouch, David
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Tim


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luce, Richard
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dunlop, John
McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dykes, Hugh
McCusker, H.
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


Elliott, Sir William
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Silvester, Fred


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sims, Roger


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, John


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miscampbell, Norman
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Goodhart, Philip
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Goodhew, Victor
Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Norman


Goodlad, Alasiair
Monro, Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan, Geraint
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Gray, Hamish
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thompson, George


Grist, Ian
Mudd, David
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Grylls, Michael
Neave, Airey
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hall, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neubert, Michael
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Hannam, John
Onslow, Cranley
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

can be no difference in giving the benefit to a friend looking after a severely disabled person, whether that friend is a resident in the same house or in the very close neighbourhood. We do not see that there is any administrative difficulty.

The Minister's answer is unsatisfactory. I had hoped that the amendment would be accepted and that there would be no need to divide the House, but in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said I ask my hon. Friends to support the amendment in the Lobbies.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 198.

Watt, Hamish
Wigley, Dafydd



Weatherill, Bernard
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wells, John
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Welsh, Andrew
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mr. Adam Butler.


Wiggin, Jerry






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Anderson, Donald
George, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gilbert, Dr John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Ashley, Jack
Golding, John
Newens, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Gould, Bryan
Noble, Mike


Atkinson, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Graham, Ted
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Bates, Alf
Grant, John (Islington C)
Ovenden, John


Bean, R. E.
Grocott, Bruce
Owen, Dr David


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hamling, William
Palmer, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurie


Boardman, H.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hatton, Frank
Radice, Giles


Bradley, Tom
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Horam, John
Roderick, Caerwyn


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Buchanan, Richard
Huckfield, Les
Rooker, J. W.


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rowlands, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sandelson, Neville


Canavan, Dennis
Hunter, Adam
Sedgemore, Brian


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cartwright, John
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Clemitson, Ivor
Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)
Sillars, James


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Janner, Greville
Silverman, Julius


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Snape, Peter


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Spearing, Nigel


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Spriggs, Leslie


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Stallard, A. W.


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Stoddart, David


Cronin, John
Kerr, Russell
Stott, Roger


Cryer, Bob
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lambie, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lamborn, Harry
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Leadbitter, Ted
Tinn, James


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Tomlinson, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dempsey, James
Loyden, Eddie
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dormand, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Ward, Michael


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Watkinson, John


Dunn, James A.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Weetch, Ken


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Wellbeloved, James


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Eadie, Alex
Madden, Max
White, James (Pollock)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Magee, Bryan
Whitehead, Phillip


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mahon, Simon
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marquand, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Woodall, Alec


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Woof, Robert


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Millan, Bruce
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Flannery, Martin
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbrlde)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Forrester, John
Molloy, William
Mr. Thomas Cox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 9

INCREASE OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES

The following amendment stood upon the Order Paper: No. 13, in page 10, line 25, leave out Clause 9.

12 midnight.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The House will welcome the news that since we had such a full discussion earlier about family allowances and the family endowment scheme, I do not wish to make my arguments again on this amendment. Thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) we were able to embarrass the Government considerably over their appalling record in this field. Therefore, at this late hour I shall not attempt to pursue the matter further but will try to get more satisfactory replies from the Government at a more convenient time and a more convenient date.

Schedule 3

AMENDMENTS OF PARTS I AND III OF SCHEDULE 2 TO SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT ACT 1966

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 17, line 26, at end insert:
'(b) is the case of a person receiving full-time education at school, except in the case of a person described in (a) above, by the whole amount of his earnings'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this Amendment we may take Government Amendment No. 16.

Mr. Clarke: I can be brief on this Amendment, which stands in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself because we proposed amendments in Committee and it appears to me that Amendment 16, in the name of the Minister of State, is an attempt to put into better drafting than mine the purposes we are seeking to achieve.
If the Minister will confirm that he is meeting our point, we shall have ended the ridiculous rule which at present means that the earnings of children of school leaving age can be taken into account with those of their parents and not disregarded, so that a boy doing a news-

paper round can have the effect of reducing his mother's entitlement to supplementary benefit.
This is a small point which never raised much controversy in our proceedings but which at some stage the House had to bring to the attention of a Government with sufficient force to have it put right. The Government are taking on board many amendments to change the Bill as it entered the House and we are grateful for the concession they are making on this important matter.

Mr. Alec Jones: There is no need to delay the House unduly on this, since we are, with Amendment 16, carrying out the undertaking we gave in Committee so that the earnings of dependent children, whether under 16 or over and still at school, will not go to reduce the parents' benefit in future.
I am glad to have the opportunity once again to correct drafting defects by the Opposition and also to correct the error which the hon. Gentleman made when he referred to the appalling record of this Government. If this Government's record on this subject can be regarded as appalling, I shudder to think what words should be used to describe the record of the previous administration.
We could not accept Amendment No. 15 but we hope that the House will accept Amendment No. 16.

Mr. Clarke: In the light of that assurance I look forward to supporting Amendment No. 16. I beg leave to and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made:

No. 16, in page 17, line 30, at end add—

'(2) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for the words "sub-paragraph (2)" there shall be substituted the words "sub-paragraphs (1A) and (2)"
(b) after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be added—

"(1A) The weekly earnings of—

(a) a child; and
(b) a person disentitled to benefit by virtue of section 9 of this Act;
whose resources are aggregated by virtue of paragraph 3(2) of this Schedule with those of the person having to provide for his requirements, shall be wholly disregarded."'.—[Mr. Alec Jones.]

Mr. Boscawen: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 18, line 24, at end insert:
'(c) £2.00 of any non-contributory invalidity pension'.
At this late hour I do not intend to go at great length into a matter which we discussed at length in Committee, but it concerns us very much. The new noncontributory invalidity pension as laid down in the Bill does not bring any extra cash into the pockets of a large number of people whom it is intended to help. That is because there is no disregard of the new non-contributory invalidity pension for supplementary benefit.
The overwhelming number of recipients of this benefit are likely to be those who are now being paid supplementary benefit. Although they will get the new non-contributory pension, according to the rules, that same amount will be completely deducted from the supplementary benefit which they are receiving.
Although it will now be possible for people to claim part of their pension as of right—and not all of it will be means-tested, as it was—in cash terms the overwhelming majority of people, about 150,000, will not receive a penny more. In Committee we tabled an amendment to the effect that the disregard figure should be £3·50 but were told that that was too expensive for the Government to accept. We have tabled a more modest amendment with the figure of £2 as a disregard for the purposes of supplementary benefit, so that the poorest families concerned will get at least £2 extra in cash.
Unless this is done the idea in people's minds that this is a great new benefit will be swept away in a wave of misunderstanding and anger. We believe that the absence of such a provision as we propose is a defect in the Bill. In our proposals last September we said that we believed that there should be some disregard for supplementary benefit purposes. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on behalf of the Opposition, said that we did not rule out, as economic conditions improved, the possibility that the whole of the new non-contributory pen-

sion would be disregarded for supplementary benefit. That time is not yet. We feel strongly that unless the Government give way on this point there will be widespread disappointment and dismay.

Mr. Alfred Morris: This Amendment is intended to secure a partial disregard of non-contributory invalidity pension of £2 a week. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and the importance he attaches to the amendment. This amendments is a more modest one than that tabled in Committee when it was suggested that the disregard should be £3·50. That amendment was resisted not only on the grounds of cost but also on the grounds of principle. Thus, the same objection applies to the proposed disregard of £2. If we were to accept the amendment in the present economic circumstances it would mean reducing benefit for people receiving no State benefit. We would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
It is difficult to advocate swifter progress than we are seeking to make in this important area affecting the welfare of the disabled. I am sorry to have to say that I cannot accept the amendment. The hon. Member will appreciate the importance of the points I have made and will, I hope, accept that, if the amendment were accepted, we should be in the position of having to do less for those receiving no State benefit.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 4

APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 20, line 16, after '9', insert '(Recovery of family allowances.)

No. 20, in page 20, line 26, at end insert:
'Section 81 of that Act. Section 80'.

No. 21, in page 21, line 13, at end insert:
'The Consolidated Fund. The Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland'.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

Schedule 5

COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 22, line 35, leave out 'the provisions' and insert 'any provision'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 23.

Mr. Morris: These minor amendments are needed to paragraph 2(1)(a) of Part II of the schedule as a result of the inclusion of disabled housewives in the provisions relating to the non-contributory invalidity pension. As is normally the case in social security legislation of this kind, paragraph 2(1)(a) provides that consequential regulations relating to NCIP which are made or laid in draft before the day on which the benefit is put into payment, referred to as "the appointed day", need not be submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
There will now be two such appointed days for the non-contributory invalidity pension—the first in the 1975–76 financial year for the original group of beneficiaries, and the second in the 1977–78 financial year for the housewife group. The amendments will ensure that paragraph 2(1)(a) will operate in respect of each of the appointed days and each of the two groups.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 22, line 39, leave out
'the provisions relating to that benefit'
and insert:
'that provision'.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 24, in line 3, after 'allowances', insert:
'and amend section 8 of the Family Allowances Act 1965'.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Bill is now a much improved Bill from that which first appeared some time ago. We wel-

comed the fact that the Bill, when introduced, was an uprating measure and an attempt to keep the level of benefits in line with the ever-accelerating rate of inflation. At no stage did we make any attempt to oppose the uprating. I hope that the Government will bear in mind our comments in Committee pointing out that the effect of the uprating was not likely to be too successful in keeping benefits ahead of the rate of inflation expected by the time that the benefits come into payment from April to December next year. Nevertheless, there are some welcome reliefs for beneficiaries, and on that account the Third Reading will be anxiously awaited by people outside.
Meanwhile, the House has turned what would otherwise have been a routine up-rating Bill into a worthwhile piece of legislation, and some worthwhile reforms have been forced on the Government which will have their effect outside. First, there is a small but significant change concerning disregards of children's income so that in future the small earnings of children of school-going age will not reflect on the supplementary benefit paid to their parents.
The changes made in respect of disabled housewives are by no means small or insignificant. The Government have been obliged by the House to make provision for disabled housewives and to include them in the Bill. We still hope that that will have the effect of driving the Government into making that benefit payable to disabled housewives at the same time that it is payable to other disabled people, because we believe that the timetable is indefensible and that we should not keep them waiting.
We are convinced that it is only as a result of the changes which the House has forced on the Government that disabled housewives can expect a rate of invalidity pension which will be at the same level as that paid to other disabled people. The Government's toying with the idea—this was implicit in what they said in Committee when they would give no undertakings—of paying disabled housewives a lower rate has, I hope, been abandoned.
We have made some worthwhile changes in the impact of the earnings rule upon retirement pensioners, which will


have a significant effect upon their enjoyment of life. The Bill contains an uprating of family allowances, which is welcome.
I am disappointed that, because of the tight money resolution, the obduracy and delays of the Government and their failure to implement their election promises, the Bill does not leave the House with any hint of the introduction of family allowances for first children, or any steps towards the family endowment scheme which the House anxiously awaits. Apart from that one major defect, I accept that there is a great deal of good in the Bill as it now stands. It will have a significant effect on the social life of the country, and the Opposition wish to delay it no longer.

12.20 a.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I have sought to take an active part at each stage of the Bill. I congratulate the Government on having introduced a measure which will confer many benefits which are desperately needed, but I join my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in expressing a sense of disappointment at the wasted opportunities and the indecision that lie behind the Bill.
British social security is a house built on sand, partly because of inflation. The Bill deals with money values. On almost every page the obligations and entitlements are expressed in cash terms. Even while we are speaking the values are melting away. The Government have not found an answer to that. The Bill has been overshadowed by our economic difficulties which result from society being so terribly divided. Social security could be one of the ways by which society could be drawn closer together, but to achieve that the Government would have to answer certain fundamental questions which they have not answered.
The Government have not answered fundamental questions on the relationship between benefits and taxation. They still do not know what they intend to do about family endowment. They have made useful strides forward on disability, partly under pressure from the Committee, but on pensions they still do not know whether pensioners get their

entitlement because of need, contributions or citizenship.
We had an interesting, even exciting, debate on the earnings rule, but once again the House is left in a state of indecision. It is to be phased out up to a point, but the decision whether to get rid of the earnings rule, unfortunately, still has to be taken. Then there are the administrative tasks lying ahead of the Department. The reforms which are so long overdue are bringing the Department to the verge of breakdown. Ministers are yawning. They show no sign of the sense of urgency they should have.
While we welcome the Bill, we have to express reservations and a deep sense of disappointment at the opportunities wasted.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. O'Malley: The impudence of the hon. Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is astonishing. I know that it is not possible to go outside the terms of the Bill and I shall not do so, except briefly to refer to the poor record of the previous Conservative administration in social security matters. When we took over, the level of retirement pensions—which the Bill increases and which we increased on 22nd July—had fallen to its lowest ever point in terms of the national average wage since the end of the war. The Government by the Bill are implementing the first increase in family allowances since 1968, in spite of a pledge given by the late Iain MacLeod which was not kept.
For the hon. Members for Rushcliffe and Kensington to speak to the Government about the Bill in the terms they used is impudent. The hon. Member for Kensington has more years than has the hon. Member for Rushcliffe and should know better. He is supposed to be an impartial observer of the scene, but he has not shown much impartiality tonight. I wish that he would say honestly what is the record of the Conservative Government and acknowledge that much is put right by the Bill.
Our uprating measures will cost in total almost £1,150 million. That includes £207 million for the first increase in family allowances since 1968 and £13


million for the first increase in supplementary disregards since 1966—a Labour Government being in office in both those years.
Pensioners can look at this Bill and agree with the fact—not the opinion—that the achievements of the Government in social security provision are unmatched by any Government since the war and are far superior to any proposals brought forward both in the 13 years of Tory rule between 1951 and 1964 and in the years between 1970 and 1974. The Government have also promised a second uprating next autumn—and that is compared with the more than two and a half years between upratings which occurred under the Tory Government in the 1950s.
The Government are keeping their manifesto commitment, contrary to what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe has said, not only in the letter but in the spirit, and that we shall continue to do. We are proud of our record in social security and pensions provision, and all the knocking from the Opposition cannot hide that fact from the electorate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

BABY FOODS

12.26 a.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a question that is shattering the nation—that of baby food. The subject was raised with me by a group of young mothers who have organised themselves to provide playgroup facilities and to take up the cudgels for young housewives in a village in my constituency.
It is a creditable reflection on our democratic institutions that grassroots concern can be expressed, albeit on what appears to be a comparatively minor matter, in Parliament. It will be to the enormous credit of the Government if they take notice of this concern. Credit is due entirely to the Denholme Toddlers'

Club, therefore, for drawing my attention to the matter.
The anomalous position is set out with clarity in the Department of Health and Social Security circular HSC (15) 17, sent out last April. It says:
This circular advises Area Health Authorities to continue the practice at clinics where it has existed before 1st April whereby, as a convenience to mothers, some proprietary foods and other goods are sold at certain local maternity and child health clinics. Regulations entitled 'Sale of Goods at Maternity and Child Health Clinics (Designation and Charging Regulations, 1974', specify the goods concerned, the basis on which charges are to be made and the basis for exemption from charges.
It gives a brief history of the practice:
Since 1948, with the approval of this Department … some local health authorities (and other local authorities with delegated health powers) have made arrangements for goods such as proprietary brands of milk for babies, nutrients, infants' foods, vitamin supplements, milk drink beverages, toothbrushes and other items mainly for young children, to be sold on maternity and child health clinic premises, as a convenience to parents and at prices lower than retail. The items have been sold at cost price plus a handling expenses charge with exemptions from charges made in a few areas, usually for proprietary brands of milk for babies, for families considered to be in financial need.
It goes on:
While the sale of goods for mothers and young children at clinics is not an essential part of the health services, it is a convenience to the mothers.
The last sentence on the first page reads:
Goods should not be sold at clinics where sales were not previously made nor should new kinds of goods be sold at any clinic.
It is the last sentence which is the cause of concern.
In 1973 the West Riding Area Health Authority, in my view wrongly, decided not to sell proprietary brands of baby food such as Cow and Gate milk, Trufood, Ostermilk, optrose, and orange juice, and to provide instead only National Dried Milk. In Bradford County Borough area, however, the dual system continued, with both National Dried Milk and proprietary foods provided.
I understand that National Dried Milk is as nutritious as the proprietary brands and is a good deal cheaper, but some others prefer proprietary brands for reasons I shall explain later and which are not altogether creditable to the baby food industry.
On local government reorganisation the existing system was retained, although the organisation of the health authorities was reshaped in line with local government. This emphasises very strongly the duality of the system so that within one area health authority one clinic provides both types of food and one does not. However, in the old Bradford County Borough area, clinics provide proprietary foods. Since all the area covered is now part of the Bradford Metropolitan District Council, people rightly feel that unification should take place. One can well imagine the feeling that it is a bureaucratic anomaly that in one village proprietary foods should not be provided while a short distance of perhaps three or four miles away proprietary foods are provided, albeit within the area of the same authority.
One of the members of the Denholme Toddlers' Club has written to me as follows:
The argument of the Committee of the Toddlers' Club and of the mothers in the area is that there should be a uniformity of distribution of goods and services throughout an area. The proprietary brands of Welfare Foods are much cheaper when bought at the clinic and mothers in this area, in particular, are handicapped by the shortage of retail outlets and transport costs from having a choice as to where they can buy these and similar goods and consequently often have to pay a high price.
I think that it is worth noting that the pricing of proprietary foods in clinics is not entirely subject to market forces, being governed by regulations which I mentioned earlier when I quoted from the circular. Hence clinics' prices may well be below shop prices.
I emphasise the difficulties for those young women with children in Denholme in relation to the lack of provision of proprietary foods. A young mother, with perhaps one, two or three small children, will have to walk up a hill to the clinic situated at the top of the village, which can be wearing for a mother with small children. If her children are on a proprietary brand of baby food she will often be reluctant to change to National Dried Milk. She cannot obtain the proprietary brand at the local co-operative supermarket, where she might well do her shopping—since it is the largest shop in the village—because a few years ago the local co-operative sold off the chemist's

side of the business to another party, with a restrictive covenant that the co-operative would not sell baby foods. Consequently the mother has yet a further trail to another shop.
Denholme is an isolated village in my constituency. If the shop is shut it means an expensive trip to either Bradford or Keighley. It might be argued that the selling of proprietary foods by a local clinic could adversely affect the commercial position of a local shop selling these foods. If discretion were given to the local authority in these matters, representations could be made to the local authority where it seems unlikely that such representations would be made to a centralised body such as the Department. That is why we have local government—so that some degree of concession can be made to take into account special circumstances.
The Minister will recognise that if he were to allow the sale of proprietary foods at clinics at the discretion of the area health authority it would be much appreciated in Denholme because of the circumstances that I have outlined. Otherwise the restriction seems noticeably unnecessary and bureaucratic. A recent answer to a parliamentary Question gives me some hope that a recommendation will follow and will allow some discretion, and I hope that the Minister will confirm these thoughts tonight.
Genuine choice, however, works both ways. Many young mothers going to clinics need proprietary foods because that is what they are feeding their children on, and this is so because, I believe they are never given a genuine choice in maternity hospitals. National Dried Milk is never offered to them. Some paediatricians say that National Dried Milk is not good enough and recommend some form of brand food, yet at the same time these paediatricians would no doubt claim that mothers can have National Dried Milk if they request it. This means, in practice, that mothers or mothers-to-be in a most vulnerable situation, and going through one of the most traumatic situations that they will face in their lives, are expected to ignore doctors' advice and insist on obtaining National Dried Milk. One understands and appreciates that in such a situation most young mothers would accept the


doctors' advice and would not dream of requesting National Dried Milk.
Worse still, evidence has been presented to me that less than three years ago—and I have heard nothing to suggest that this practice has changed—representatives from baby food firms actually visited maternity wards handing out free samples to mothers round the wards. In one case brought to my attention, Golden Oster-milk was handed out together with announcement cards in a gift pack to each mother so that she could announce proudly the arrival of her baby at the commercial expense of the firm providing the cards in order to gain commercial advantage from them, which seems to me to be the most unscrupulous commercial exploitation.
In a letter dated 28th April 1972, the chief nursing officer of the Central Middlesex Group Hospital Management Committee wrote:
The gift packs, samples and parcels are distributed by area representatives, and this is a practice which is common in maternity units up and down the country.
If this practice still exists, it is a scandal. Young mothers are being deliberately exploited in order that their babies may be "hooked" on commercial baby foods, always to the exclusion of the much, much cheaper and many would claim—including the Department of Health and Social Security—equally nutritious National Dried Milk.
A health visitor wrote at the time:
I am very worried about recent trends concerning mothers who have recently had confinements at Central Middlesex. On leaving the hospital they are presented with a free packet of Golden Ostermilk which mothers then feel is the recommended milk for the baby. They are not informed of the cheaper brands of dried milk.
It must be accepted that in some instances where a mother is told or informed or has it implied to her by a hospital that a brand of milk is suitable or better for her baby, she will take a good deal of persuading when she goes to a clinic that the very much cheaper National Dried Milk is just as good. Moreover, there may be some sort of social cachet in obtaining a more expensive milk, although she may not be in an easy position to afford it, on the basis—and I accept that this is a genuine aspiration of most mothers—that nothing but the best is good enough for her child, although the best

might well be National Dried Milk and be much cheaper.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that he will look into this nefarious practice in National Health Service hospitals and issue regulations preventing this sort of unscrupulous commercial exploitation of mothers, and ensure a genuine choice of brands and a genuine choice of National Dried Milk. I suggest to him that nothing less than regulations will do. We are dealing not with local authorities, who follow circulars although they do not have legal effect, but with commercial interests which can be shaped and controlled in the interests of the community only by being regulated.
I should like to be assured that a choice of proprietary brands will be available at clinics for mothers whose children are already taking a particular brand. This could lay the basis possibly for an eventual phasing out of branded foods in hospitals and so the range of foods in clinics would become redundant. Until that day there should be genuine choice in the hospitals between branded foods and National Dried Milk and there should be a choice at the clinics.

12.41 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for-Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is right to draw attention to the problems of mothers and children in the villages in his constituency.
I can understand that mothers attending the Denholme and Queensbury maternity and child health clinics feel that they are less fortunate, to put it mildly, than those attending other clinics in the area of the Bradford Area Health Authority because they cannot buy proprietary brands of baby food at the clinic. The main function of child health clinics is to provide advice to mothers on caring for their young children and surveillance of the health and development of their children. We have good reason to be proud of this service. Over the years clinics have developed and also provide vitamin supplements and National Dried Milk for mothers and young children as part of the Welfare Food Service.
The sale of proprietary goods such as baby milk foods is also undertaken in some clinics. I think I should make clear the distinction between proprietary brands


of dried milk for babies and National Dried Milk, which is supplied as a part of the Welfare Food Service. National Dried Milk is available free of charge at clinics and other welfare food distribution centres for children under school age in families who are receiving supplementary benefits, family income supplement, or are in special need because of low income and also, regardless of income, for all but the first two children under school age in families with three or more children under school age. For children who are not entitled to free supplies of National Dried Milk, mothers may buy it at clinics at a lower price than that of the equivalent proprietary baby milk foods.
Before April 1974 local health authority clinics in addition to services for the health and welfare of mothers and babies, could sell many proprietary goods. But it was not mandatory upon them to do so and, as a result, practice varied between areas and possibly between clinics in the same area. Of nearly 200 local health authorities, about 160 made some sort of sales at clinics. Practice in the nature of sales varied from clinic to clinic. At some clinics, the sales were just cups of tea for mothers attending child health clinic sessions and classes; at others sales ranged from baby milk foods and nutrients to food drinks, Marmite, vitamin supplements, medicated and other shampoos toothbrushes, toothpaste and booklets—almost like a village shop. Thus, the pattern varied widely and it was not the case that proprietary foods were sold in all clinics.
Before April 1974 the child health services at clinics were a responsibility of the local health authority. As part of the reorganisation of the National Health Service, under the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973, these responsibilities were transferred to area health authorities, and it was essential to the Government to give guidance to the authorities on the future of the arrangements for sales in a national unified service.
There were three possible lines of action. We could have extended these sales to all authorities, thus giving the

activity a new status as almost a part of the National Health Service. We could have abolished them altogether as inessential—a service which was making an undue call on staff time at the very time when we were all conscious of the strains on the resources of the National Health Service. Between those two extreme courses lay a third possibility. It was this third course which we decided upon as what we then considered to be a reasonable compromise. It was that sales might continue at those clinics at which they were made before reorganisation and cover the same kinds of goods. This was the basis of the circular to which my hon. Friend referred.
The merit of this decision was that no additional staff were needed, the same arrangements continued and individual mothers who were used to buying certain baby foods at their clinic could continue doing so. They were not inconvenienced by an ending of sales because of the reorganisation of the National Health Service.
I recognise that this decision has caused the anomalies to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. Because of boundary changes, some clinics in an area health authority make sales whilst others do not. This is what has happened in the Bradford area, as my hon. Friend has described in some detail.
An extension of these sales to all clinics would indeed have taken up staff time, both in the sale of these products and in the ordering and stocking of the items, and in the administration involved. It was feared that this might have reduced the staff time available for the main clinic activities in caring for the health of young children. These sales could also have been regarded as unwelcome to certain retail pharmacists, as they are sometimes regarded as unfair competition.
However, one of the points which causes me some concern is that if we took any action which might injure or threaten the viability of certain chemists and as a consequence of that action those chemists' shops closed down, we should have taken an action which was not in the best interests of the communities. I suspect that this might be particularly so in certain rural areas, though I certainly


do not have the experience to describe my hon. Friend's area in this respect.
Another reason why we were reluctant to introduce a national compulsory scheme for sales of proprietary goods was that the item most often sold by local health authorities was proprietary baby milk food. As I have mentioned, the Government already provide at clinics National Dried Milk. I wish that we could get over the message that National Dried Milk is a baby milk powder which is equal in nutritional value to the proprietary brands and is sold at 20p for a 20 oz. pack. I hope that even from this late debate some of this will go out to those mothers who are under some pressure—

Mr. Cryer: May I ask my hon. Friend to send the message out to the maternity hospitals, in the way I suggested?

Mr. Jones: I shall come to that point.
I appreciate that, although the composition of National Dried Milk is almost identical to that of proprietary brands, a doctor may sometimes advise a mother to use a proprietary brand for her baby either when she is in the maternity hospital or when she is home. This does, of course, mean that, if her local clinic is not one of those which have continued the sale of proprietary brands, she will have to buy it when she does her ordinary shopping, either at a chemist or a shop.
If not direct evidence given by my hon. Friend, certainly the charges made by him—I am not challenging his good faith in the matter—of undue pressure being exerted on mothers are matters which I shall take up as soon as I get to the Department in the morning. If my hon. Friend has any specific information on this matter I should be delighted to receive it. Like him, I believe that at times like this mothers ought not to be subjected to any sort of pressure in deciding what sort of baby foods they should provide for their children.
I should like to take this opportunity of doing almost a commercial plug for the Department and I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive that. We are at risk of forgetting the provision which

nature has made for a mother to breast feed her child. The report published last year under the title "Present Day Practice in Infant Feeding" was the report of a working party of the Panel on Child Nutrition of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. It recommended an increase in breast feeding. I suppose that no one could regard this as a "commercial". The working party was convinced that a child's satisfactory growth and development is more certain when an infant is fed an adequate amount of breast milk, and it recommended all mothers to be encouraged to breast feed their babies for at least a fortnight and preferably for the first four to six months.
The Department will be drawing the attention of the health authorities to its recommendation and doing all that is possible to make it known among doctors, midwives, health visitors and other staff of the health service who are in touch with expectant mothers and their young children. The Department also plans publicity aimed at the parents.
I have taken note of everything my hon. Friend said. Certainly, I believe that the reply which he received from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State indicates that we have an understanding of the position of the mothers in an isolated rural area whose local clinic does not sell proprietory baby foods. My hon. Friend indicated apparent pressure that is being made by baby food representatives and the use of sample gift packs. This came as complete news to me since they do not seem to be that generous in my part of the world. I have never heard mothers in Rhondda complain on this score, so perhaps they have been forgotten in this respect.
It is important, however, that we should ensure that this sort of pressure, if it exists, should be removed and that mothers should have a genuine choice. If my hon. Friend has any specific information in addition to what he said tonight I shall be pleased to receive it.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley yesterday that I, as Under-Secretary in the Department, would be sympathetically re-examining this whole


issue. I will take on board my hon. Friend's suggestion that we might consider giving discretionary powers to the area health authorities. I can assure him that the expression "re-examining the whole issue" means that I will make a genuine re-examination of the decision we made and the advice we issued in the

light of everything he said this evening. As soon as I come to any conclusion on this matter I will certainly communicate to my hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to One o'clock.